4 ms·

My understanding is that promotion/relegation systems tend to lead to more lop-sided leagues where the winners keep winning because of the virtuous cycle of: mo

My understanding is that promotion/relegation systems tend to lead to more lop-sided leagues where the winners keep winning because of the virtuous cycle of: more money from the TV rights from being in the "champions" league -> buy better players -> the better players keep you in the "champions" league. That said, there are no American sports with a promotion/relegation system (probably because those systems evolved organically in Europe from local teams just becoming good and gaining a following, and the American way of having billionaires owning one of a small, fixed set of teams means that they want to protect their investments and wouldn't accept a chance of being relegated and losing their valuable TV money), so it would be interesting if one of them picked it up. From an outsider's perspective, though, I think it'd probably be better to bias towards simplicity instead of trying to fix every problem. E.g. instead of having the "must win 86 games in two/three seasons to make it to the champions league", fix the number of teams in the top league and promote the top of the bottom league and relegate the bottom of the top league. Making the system more complicated to prevent teams from tanking probably isn't a worthwhile tradeoff, since 1) it sucks when teams tank, but it's very exciting when a bad team starts to do very well (e.g. the Bengals at this year's Super Bowl), and 2) that system still doesn't stop the teams at the bottom of the second league from tanking, since there's no punishment for them and they can get better draft picks. Though my 2c to improve baseball as someone who just started watching football and tried to follow baseball when I was younger: 1. Reduce the number of games. In football, there are so few games that each one matters a lot. In baseball, there are so many that it's hard to be invested. 2. Find a way to make games more fun to watch on TV. Going to a ballpark in person is always a fun, chill experience as long as you bring a friend. That atmosphere doesn't translate when you're watching on TV, so the game itself probably has to be made more exciting in some way (add more time pressure, or let the players take steroids /s).

sien 5y ago
In Europe you can't have rules about salary taxes and maximum spend because football (soccer) is a truly international game and other countries don't agree. Also the TV money split is very inequitable in Spain with Real Madrid and Barca getting ~50% of the leagues TV money where as in England the TV money split is much more equitable. Baseball also doesn't have a Champion's League so that's no issue. With baseball you could have a fairly equitable split on TV money and a salary tax at a certain point so you would still get different teams winning over time.
arrosenberg 5y ago
> My understanding is that promotion/relegation systems tend to lead to more lop-sided leagues where the winners keep winning because of the virtuous cycle of: more money from the TV rights from being in the "champions" league -> buy better players -> the better players keep you in the "champions" league. This is sort of true, but I'd argue it still results in a better product than the American model. Pro/rel in Europe tends to vary based on the way TV rights money is divided and how much is available. In Spain, your description is pretty accurate, since Real Madrid and Barcelona can negotiate their own rights with minimal revenue sharing. Those two teams will always be near the top, as demonstrated by Barcelona's performance this year - they've been complete trash and are still tied for 4th on points. In England the TV money gets divided up more evenly, and the result is that big clubs can fail if their management is poor - Newcastle, West Ham, Aston Villa, Fulham, and other large clubs have experience relegation. Everton is at risk of it for the first time ever (I believe) due to some really poor decisions by their front office. On the other hand, Leicester City - a team no one had heard of - won the EPL in 2016. I'd prefer the league with a handful of locked-in elite clubs where mobility is possible than a league where 1/3rd of the teams are incentivized to lose, and another 1/3 know they have nothing to play for while the season is still going.

sien 5y ago

In Europe you can't have rules about salary taxes and maximum spend because football (soccer) is a truly international game and other countries don't agree. Also the TV money split is very inequitable in Spain with Real Madrid and Barca getting ~50% of the leagues TV money where as in England the TV money split is much more equitable. Baseball also doesn't have a Champion's League so that's no issue. With baseball you could have a fairly equitable split on TV money and a salary tax at a certain point so you would still get different teams winning over time.

arrosenberg 5y ago

> My understanding is that promotion/relegation systems tend to lead to more lop-sided leagues where the winners keep winning because of the virtuous cycle of: more money from the TV rights from being in the "champions" league -> buy better players -> the better players keep you in the "champions" league. This is sort of true, but I'd argue it still results in a better product than the American model. Pro/rel in Europe tends to vary based on the way TV rights money is divided and how much is available. In Spain, your description is pretty accurate, since Real Madrid and Barcelona can negotiate their own rights with minimal revenue sharing. Those two teams will always be near the top, as demonstrated by Barcelona's performance this year - they've been complete trash and are still tied for 4th on points. In England the TV money gets divided up more evenly, and the result is that big clubs can fail if their management is poor - Newcastle, West Ham, Aston Villa, Fulham, and other large clubs have experience relegation. Everton is at risk of it for the first time ever (I believe) due to some really poor decisions by their front office. On the other hand, Leicester City - a team no one had heard of - won the EPL in 2016. I'd prefer the league with a handful of locked-in elite clubs where mobility is possible than a league where 1/3rd of the teams are incentivized to lose, and another 1/3 know they have nothing to play for while the season is still going.