Comment by Joe8Bit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joe8Bit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Lots of people have talked eloquantly about the monetary greed the Super League entailed, but I think it misses the wider point, Kronke (et al) have long been pushing for a _redistribution of power_ in football, away from the 'leagues' (e.g. the Premier League, La Liga, UEFA) to the clubs and owners themselves. Which is the now the canonical model for US sports, where they're most comfortable.

Another example of this is last year's "Project Big Picture"[0] in the Premier League, which was mostly led by the same owners with the same motivations.

As an illustrive example, take the NFL where Roger Goodell's purpose is to serve the leagues owners. He's an instrument of their will and so's steered the NFL in a direction that benefits them the most (e.g. Goodell will always pick the path that gets them the most money). The Premier League on the other hand takes decisions that are seen by big club owners as precisely _against_ their interests (e.g. distributing TV money from foreign TV deals equally to all clubs when they claim >80% of matches watched outside the UK are of the 5-6 big clubs, the classic but reductive 'No one in Malaysia wants to watch Bolton play')

[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/africa/54510898

Club != Owners.

The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.

Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.

In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.

Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.

> the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.

This has always confused me: what's the connection between the community and the club? How does Man City 'represent' Manchester?

From my experience, clubs are much more connected with the community in Europe. Where I'm from, you'd have sports clubs that offer different sports at different levels. In Germany you'll find a "Sportverein (SV), Fussballclub (FC), Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft (TSG), etc" in almost every town. If it's a generic club, they'll have many sports. Eintracht Frankfurt for instance has a Bundesliga football team but they also have amateur football teams, handball teams, hockey, etc. Towns often have more than one sports club so there connection to "your" club as well.

So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).

Clubs are heavily involved in their communities. They do a lot of charity and community work. Lots of players come through the club’s youth system, which usually contains a disproportionate number of local kids.

The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.

In the UK most clubs are literally in the middle of a residential community. In many working-class towns they're the literal and emotional centre of the community - visible from all around and one of just a few unchanging social things shared across generations. People are very heavily invested into them.

Some clubs are majority owned by the fans.

I don't think that's it. For fans, whether you "belong" to a club has nothing to do with money. It more what city you were born in, what games did your parents take you to when you were young, what trading cards did you own when you were a child or who were your idols when you played football as a kid, things like that.

I was shocked when I learned that American sports teams could be bought and moved to another city.

I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.

> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton

I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).

Whether you support City or United has been a cultural thing going back 100 years. It kind of defines you and where you fit in. I know some people that have had season passes for City for 50+ years, passed down from father to son. It is totally part of their identity.

Geography only plays a small part of this.

That’s not even remotely geographically correct.

And United’s first home wasn’t in Trafford.

> That’s not even remotely geographically correct.

Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.

How many Man City players are actually from Manchester? I fail to see the connection to the local community.

In a recent game half of the Manchester United onfield players were local or academy players. Mostly local.

I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?

Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.

Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...

>Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...

I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.

Yes, the owners want their status to mean they receive more guaranteed income.

But that’s not how football works. Status and brand shouldn’t matter, you get money based on your results.

Most of these clubs are pretty much assured of qualification for Europe anyway, but at least they earn it by finishing in the top few places in their national league.

They already have the most money, they want to get rid of the risk that they might not always do so.

But the NFL distributes all TV money equally to all teams as well even though no one in Malaysia wants to watch Tampa Bay. Further most of that money goes to the players not the club owners. How do you square that with your thesis?

There's only 32 NFL teams and even when the crappy ones play internationally, they draw huge crowds. And that's because it's a closed circuit so the level of play of the worst teams is much higher than the worst teams in European football. The NFL as a league is also designed to have a much higher degree of parity than European football. There are also fewer games, which increases the importance of each game. These rules are dictated by the NFL (more or less) because the goal of the league is to make the league successful by being fun to watch.

The NFL might distribute money evenly, but only among the select, limited number of teams that the NFL allows to be a part of the NFL brand.

Of course 32 teams will be better than the literally 10 thousands of teams in European, which all have a chance of playing at the highest level, albeit not a huge chance for most of them. My local football team is part of same pyramid as CL, despite them only playing for fun. Small local teams have risen through the ranks to the best national leagues.

The "draft" plays a role in this too where the worst teams, in theory, get the best players further increasing the chance of parity. Unless those terrible teams are terrible because their management sucks and just repeatedly make terrible decisions over the years.

I think some of them would like to see Tom Brady play for Tampa Bay, especially after winning the Super Bowl. About five years ago his old team the patriots played in Mexico City’s arena to 75,000 people and it was a huge hit. This is in a country which has its own strong soccer culture.

Speaking as someone from Malaysia, I would love to there be an easy way to watch NFL games here.

Pirating them is quite easy, though that doesn't fix the timezone problem

The CBA gives owners 52% of football related money and players 48%. So, no, the majority of the money does not go to players.

And the way football related is defined is fairly narrow, so some obvious revenue sources (suite upgrades, parking, etc) do not fall under football related and therefore goes to the owners.

Further, the vast majority of wealth the owners make is through the rapidly increasing value of their teams.

At the end of the day the income is peanuts compared to the wealth and asset value appreciation that is generated by the teams.

> The CBA gives owners 52% of football related money and players 48%. So, no, the majority of the money does not go to players.

I think you're looking at this a bit too narrowly - every expense involved in running an NFL team comes out of that 52% that the owners "get", so none of the owners are actually seeing all 52% of that money.

Please note - I'm simply responding to the specifics here - I'm not saying that owners are hard done by, in fact I believe the split should be more weighted to the players (and include roster expansion and more pay/stability for practice squad players).

How much of that value appreciation is derived from income, vs the status symbol nature of owning a team?

Yeah, I think this is more about power. Sky News has put this on its front page. Wonder if that's because they've invested heavily in the existing setup?

I'm not sure a super league isn't a good idea. At the moment the top six or so teams in the Premiership are more or less unbeatable by those beneath them. I'd like to see more games where they play other great teams in Europe, and fewer of them beating Middlesbrough or whatever. (Or Norwich, my local team that just got promoted.)

you say that but a complete minnow (Leicester) won the league only five years ago putting all these 'big' clubs to shame. Yes the odds are stacked in their favour but the only thing that keeps it exciting is the (small) chance of a big upset.

Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool are out of the Europe spots at the moment though. I want to see the best teams playing in the Champion's League, not the wealthiest.

If the US had relegation from baseball and football it would improve the sport.

At the moment there is no penalty for coming last in the AFL or NFL :-) oh and next year you have first pick of the best new players

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_le...

The NFL, MLB, and the NBA are all higher revenue sports than the EPL. Even the NHL brings in more revenue than every other sports league than the big 3 North American sports + EPL- 30% more than La Liga or Bundesliga. So if revenues for sports without relegation are so much greater than the revenues for sports with relegation, why would it improve the sport?

The best music is also not the one that draws the higher revenues.

Now add up all the major leagues in Europe and sum it up again.

Sure, but let's go by # of teams: The top 58 teams in promotion-relegation system: (EPL+La Liga+Bundesliga- I'll even through in UCL since it's mostly the same core teams driving the attention) 15.5 billion euros The top 62 teams in limited entry leagues: (NFL+NBA) 21.1 billion euros (You can even add in Ligue 1 and Serie A and you STILL don't get to just what the NFL and NBA pull in, setting aside MLB and the NHL. MLS, which does not do promotion/relegation, and is clearly the fifth biggest sport in the US, pulls in ~as much as the EFL.)

In terms of money, which is a rough but reasonable proxy for fan interest, limited entry leagues seem to make more money.

EPL is higher if you normalise by population.

Whose population? The EPL makes so much money because it's a global sport, so why should I normalize by the population of the UK?

If you want the global sport then use global football revenue. If you want apples to apples for a regional league then compare US to Europe or normalise by population for a single country.

It's another example of Americans exporting their culture, and not even recognising how they are different. It's there in travel, it's there on the internet, it's there in sport.

It's not deliberate arrogance, it just comes from the same core belief that thinks the USA is the best in everything {insert newsroom speech}

As an American, not having 15 leagues with the worlds best players spread out seems like a great idea. I'd rather watch the worlds best players play each other every week than have to wait a full year for the Champions league

Reply on news.ycombinator.com