6 ms·

It's funny how they jump to blaming the Americans. Last I checked the Spanish clubs in this scheme weren't run by Americans.

by lmz 6y ago

oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
I think it's less about specific Americans (e.g. owners of several of the English teams involved) and more about the American style of running league competitions — e.g. without promotion/relegation.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  In the "American system", in most major sports, individual players (and coaches, effectively) are relegated and promoted between the big league and smaller developmental leagues all the time. I don't love the American system but a failure to ensure that our top talent plays in the top leagues is not one of its deficiencies. In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system. As an American I would admit a preference for the promotion/relegation model but when I look at how a league like the English Premier League functions I don't find much to be jealous of. It's basically just a contest to see who has the most money... the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. Greed wins. And the fat paychecks for Premier league teams assure that the rich stay rich. It's hilarious to think of Man U being relegated because it could happen but c'mon, it's not. The main difference is that Euro football leagues give the illusion of adhering to the sport's amateur roots. Theoretically your local town's team could play its way up to the Bundesliga or the EPL and win it all. However... that is basically an illusion. Occasionally a team like Cardiff City fights its way up to the Premier League, takes a beating, and sinks back down to the Championship League. They never really have a chance. Once per century you get a Leicester-style miracle, which is extremely cool but it's the exception that proves the rule. Basically both systems are nearly equally ugly but the American one is more honest in most regards. However I will agree that the proposed Super League is a terrible idea. The Champions League is special because it pits the best against the best every single year. That will be much less true for the Super League.
  - treis 6y ago
    >the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. That's the thing I don't get about the opposition to this. Bayern has won the Bundesleague for a decade straight. Paris St Germaine is almost as dominant. Juventus the same in Serie A. La Liga flips between Real and Barca. Why not let these teams that have outclassed their competition go play in their own league? Let them chase the money and international market while the rest of the league can maintain their traditions.
    - sauntheninja 6y ago
      Because these teams bring in the most money and if they go there is less money left for other teams
    - kingofpandora 6y ago
      Are you saying Arsenal is one of the top 12 teams in Europe? The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.
      - treis 6y ago
        538 has them at 12th: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rankings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...
  - gmtx725 6y ago
    It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      Above all else, we can definitely agree that Leicester's miracle was one of the best sports stories ever. That was simply amazing. But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?
kjakm 6y ago
I think it’s because the tournament style was supposed to be similar to American sports.
rvieira 6y ago
The club owners pushing for this are equally responsible and fans blame them as well (in fact, some of them have resigned already). I haven't heard anyone blaming exclusively Americans (except for the linked article), if that's what you mean by "they".
gerikson 6y ago
The Spanish club Real Madrid is mentioned: > But Kroenke, Henry and the Glazers, believed to be the ringleaders of the Super League fiasco along with Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, badly miscalculated.
- tguedes 6y ago
  I think his point is that a lot of people are blaming the Americans for this when the 2 largest and greediest clubs in the world are "run" by fans. So it has nothing to do with the Americans, it's that European football has become so greedy at the top.
  - gerikson 6y ago
    That's fair. The American franchise model has a lot of advantages (or it would not be so popular) - steady income stream, revenue sharing, lower player acquisition costs. But I also think the average European soccer fan thinks that the current status quo is bad, and introducing measures to increase the concentration of power and money is to be decried.
arbitrage 6y ago
It's being labelled as "American style" here because one of the goals of the now defacto-defunct Super League is that it would have very little actual sportsmanlike competition. All of the founding members would be immune from ejection/relegation. 15/20 slots would be permanent. There's no point to competition if winning and losing has no real consequences. Just like american sports, which are so freakishly boring because of that. Someone one a superbowl? Someone came in last out of 38 teams in baseball? What happens now? Nothing? Got it. American-style sports is just playing exhibition matches over and over again, without end or consequence, year after year. There's no point to it. Turns out, real sports fans don't like that.
- caddemon 6y ago
  I mean definitely late season games between bad teams are exhibition matches, and sometimes even outright tank battles. But I'm not sure how you can claim that winning the whole league doesn't mean anything? The NFL is already pretty clearly the collection of the 32 best football teams in the world. Presumably there is also a top end to promotion in European leagues, does winning the best of the best league mean nothing because you can't get promoted anymore? That's a pretty weird way of looking at sports
- rchaud 6y ago
  I've noticed that more and more people watch solely because they have a player from that game in their fantasy lineup, no other reason. Others have bet on a particular outcome in that game. Say what you will about American puritanism, but it's shocking how brazenly the English game promotes gambling.
- permo-w 6y ago
  “What happens now? Nothing?” Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season
Tarsul 6y ago
well one of the masterminds behind it is JPMorgan Chase, American.

It's funny how they jump to blaming the Americans. Last I checked the Spanish clubs in this scheme weren't run by Americans.

by lmz 6y ago

It's funny how they jump to blaming the Americans. Last I checked the Spanish clubs in this scheme weren't run by Americans.

oneeyedpigeon 6y ago

I think it's less about specific Americans (e.g. owners of several of the English teams involved) and more about the American style of running league competitions — e.g. without promotion/relegation.

JohnBooty 6y ago
In the "American system", in most major sports, individual players (and coaches, effectively) are relegated and promoted between the big league and smaller developmental leagues all the time. I don't love the American system but a failure to ensure that our top talent plays in the top leagues is not one of its deficiencies. In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system. As an American I would admit a preference for the promotion/relegation model but when I look at how a league like the English Premier League functions I don't find much to be jealous of. It's basically just a contest to see who has the most money... the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. Greed wins. And the fat paychecks for Premier league teams assure that the rich stay rich. It's hilarious to think of Man U being relegated because it could happen but c'mon, it's not. The main difference is that Euro football leagues give the illusion of adhering to the sport's amateur roots. Theoretically your local town's team could play its way up to the Bundesliga or the EPL and win it all. However... that is basically an illusion. Occasionally a team like Cardiff City fights its way up to the Premier League, takes a beating, and sinks back down to the Championship League. They never really have a chance. Once per century you get a Leicester-style miracle, which is extremely cool but it's the exception that proves the rule. Basically both systems are nearly equally ugly but the American one is more honest in most regards. However I will agree that the proposed Super League is a terrible idea. The Champions League is special because it pits the best against the best every single year. That will be much less true for the Super League.
- treis 6y ago
  >the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. That's the thing I don't get about the opposition to this. Bayern has won the Bundesleague for a decade straight. Paris St Germaine is almost as dominant. Juventus the same in Serie A. La Liga flips between Real and Barca. Why not let these teams that have outclassed their competition go play in their own league? Let them chase the money and international market while the rest of the league can maintain their traditions.
  - sauntheninja 6y ago
    Because these teams bring in the most money and if they go there is less money left for other teams
  - kingofpandora 6y ago
    Are you saying Arsenal is one of the top 12 teams in Europe? The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.
    - treis 6y ago
      538 has them at 12th: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rankings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...
- gmtx725 6y ago
  It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Above all else, we can definitely agree that Leicester's miracle was one of the best sports stories ever. That was simply amazing. But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?

kjakm 6y ago

I think it’s because the tournament style was supposed to be similar to American sports.

rvieira 6y ago

The club owners pushing for this are equally responsible and fans blame them as well (in fact, some of them have resigned already). I haven't heard anyone blaming exclusively Americans (except for the linked article), if that's what you mean by "they".

gerikson 6y ago

The Spanish club Real Madrid is mentioned: > But Kroenke, Henry and the Glazers, believed to be the ringleaders of the Super League fiasco along with Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, badly miscalculated.

tguedes 6y ago
I think his point is that a lot of people are blaming the Americans for this when the 2 largest and greediest clubs in the world are "run" by fans. So it has nothing to do with the Americans, it's that European football has become so greedy at the top.
- gerikson 6y ago
  That's fair. The American franchise model has a lot of advantages (or it would not be so popular) - steady income stream, revenue sharing, lower player acquisition costs. But I also think the average European soccer fan thinks that the current status quo is bad, and introducing measures to increase the concentration of power and money is to be decried.

arbitrage 6y ago

It's being labelled as "American style" here because one of the goals of the now defacto-defunct Super League is that it would have very little actual sportsmanlike competition. All of the founding members would be immune from ejection/relegation. 15/20 slots would be permanent. There's no point to competition if winning and losing has no real consequences. Just like american sports, which are so freakishly boring because of that. Someone one a superbowl? Someone came in last out of 38 teams in baseball? What happens now? Nothing? Got it. American-style sports is just playing exhibition matches over and over again, without end or consequence, year after year. There's no point to it. Turns out, real sports fans don't like that.

caddemon 6y ago
I mean definitely late season games between bad teams are exhibition matches, and sometimes even outright tank battles. But I'm not sure how you can claim that winning the whole league doesn't mean anything? The NFL is already pretty clearly the collection of the 32 best football teams in the world. Presumably there is also a top end to promotion in European leagues, does winning the best of the best league mean nothing because you can't get promoted anymore? That's a pretty weird way of looking at sports
rchaud 6y ago
I've noticed that more and more people watch solely because they have a player from that game in their fantasy lineup, no other reason. Others have bet on a particular outcome in that game. Say what you will about American puritanism, but it's shocking how brazenly the English game promotes gambling.
permo-w 6y ago
“What happens now? Nothing?” Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season

Tarsul 6y ago

well one of the masterminds behind it is JPMorgan Chase, American.