Hacker News Reader

Comment by conradfr | Hacker News Reader

While the football business is horrible it's nice that this may fail like the Super League.

Now if only that could put a dent in Infantino reelection...

I am not sure a replacement for Infantino is enough. It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption and Infantino is merely the latest manifestation of said culture. Some serious reform and restructuring seem needed.

Fifa is a reflection of the world. All members (nations) get a vote. Most countries are corrupt. Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa.

I am all in favor of a global revolution to overthrow capitalism with a solidarity of workers of the world. But I think we can have a non-corrupt FIFA without one.

Still there are plenty of world wide organizations that are less corrupt than fifa.

I'm actually not even sure I can think of an organisation more corrupt. Maybe the IOC is up there?

The FIA (motorsport governing body) is giving them a run for their money. Recently removed presidency term limits and made several other rule changes to prevent challengers. And like FIFA, despite the majority opinion seeming to be against the corruption the decisions get rubber stamped anyway.

The world is a reflection of the laws of physics. When complex self propagating systems coexist in an environment with limited material competition arises, and corruption is simply one inevitable result of that.

> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa

To be a bit cynical on this, I'm going to say that UEFA is worried the international scene will infringe on the European league scene.

They've found something to be outraged about, but the reality is more about the threat to their own bottom line than it is about the international game.

This is probably at least partially true. And they know that if they get together with South America, they can easily replace FIFA with another governing structure.

I'm a bit surprised to be downvoted on this, except maybe that it's seen as an attack on Europe.

There have been other attempts at a league superior to the individual national leagues -- like a permanent champions league. Establishment of anything more regular at the international level would be one more way this could be accomplished.

Each European league (and leagues from other confederations) has a vested interest in keeping the World Cup not just "free" but rare as well.

The time to be on the high horse against FIFA isn't 2026, it was against he labor conditions in Qatar, or the corruption to award the 2018 and 2022 hosts, or any number of other things.

However correct they are, they only complain when it's against their own self interest.

> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa

Do you know who Platini is?

This is only because Europe cares about soccer. If this was basketball, ice hockey or baseball then I don't think Europe would care and would be the country to bribe

> It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption

I think any large multi-national organisation that deals with handing out events that generate vast sums of money inevitably succumbs to the rot.

See also: the IOC.

FIA has entered the room

Reminiscent of the resource curse, the observation that many countries "blessed" with an abundance of natural resources actually fare pretty badly (including lots of corruption).

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

Here’s a solution: bar FIFA from selling viewing rights to their competitions and allow any station or channel to stream for free. That would grow the global game.

Take away the money and FIFA doesn’t have much to bargain with. They need to remember they are a purely administrative organization.

> That would grow the global game.

The game is already as global as it gets, 1.5bn people watched the wc final…

So a minority of the human population?

Now consider time zones.

Standard Eastern Tribe

~2bn are under 12, ~1bn are over 65 so not really a minority :)

> The game is already as global as it gets

There is a tiny bit of room for expansion. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c5y03dermmeo:

“Football is almost non-existent on this Pacific island. Nauru has never fielded a team in an official international match and it has just one – hard sand – pitch.

While there is interest in big Premier League matches, and children wear Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo kits, any attempts to actually play football tend to be mocked, unless it's Aussie rules.”

(Nauru is about 21 km², 21,000 people)

The Super League was a wonderful idea! Imagine watching the best teams in Europe playing each other multiple nights a week for months on end! Instead you’d rather watch 1 or 2 teams spend 10x more than anyone else and dominate the league every season. How is that fun or exciting? Would you rather watch a Bayern v Bremen match or a Bayern v Chelsea match? Or PSG, is it fun watching them not even bother playing their best guys in games against Lyon?

It makes no sense to me that people favored the (much) worse product because “tradition”.

Easy: it was going to be a (mostly) closed competition.

Competition gets boring real fast when it is always the same handful of teams. When there are no real consequences to losing, winning becomes meaningless.

Bayern v Chelsea matches stop being as interesting when every game is a Bayern v Chelsea match and most of them have no real impact either way. On the other hand, football becomes most interesting when it's a Bayern v Bremen and Bremen wins. People love an underdog after all, and nothing is more exciting than seeing an elite team take the game for granted and being punished for it.

The Super League is only a more interesting product from the "big name play ball" perspective. It is great when you want to make a fortune in tv rights and licensing, but it sucks for everyone who cares about football as a sport.

That’s the same justification my German friend made. I guess it’s American viewpoint vs European. The Super League would have been like the NFL in the US, where every team can beat any other any given night. That’s much more appealing to me, but to each their own.

The NFL is so balanced not because it’s a “super” league but because every team has the same salary cap. The best team and the worst team all have to spend essentially the exact same amount of money on their players, ensuring that no team can buy their way to the top.

Even there it’s still not really true that the best team can lose to the worst team in any given night. The best team is generally favored a lot and justifiably so. In soccer teams can also be quite mismatched and a lucky goal by the worse team can be the only score and win the match.

The NFL is an association of billionaires that captured a sport and created rules to keep scarcity going and not let either of them ruin it for the others. In football we already have oil magnates buying individual clubs here and there, but at least they are very diluted among the real clubs.

Another large part is the draft. Worst team gets first pick goes a long way to levelling the playing field.

As a lapsed NY Jets fan, I disagree -- competent ownership and management is required more than good draft picks. To wit: Tom Brady was drafted at 199 overall, but the Jets' last two QB picks (Zach Williams and Sam Darnold) are both journeyman-level players.

I'm more of a hockey guy, which has a much stricter salary cap than the NFL, and the Edmonton Oilers are instructive here: they had a bunch of first overall picks 10 years ago (including multiple franchise players), but the team itself wasn't competitive until management changed and could build a cohesive team.

Bad management will certainly tank a team, but he’s right. The draft structure also helps to even out the teams.

In the NFL, winning is more about quality management and coaching (and some luck) than anything else. Which is a good thing. Leagues where winners are decided mostly on who is able to spend the most on players are lopsided and kind of lame.

I agree with you, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the NFL is balanced because they tried to make it balanced - the salary cap, draft, revenue sharing, etc. are all outcomes of that plan, not the prime motivators themselves.

In the Champions League the top, let’s say, 16 teams can all beat each other, so that part of the NFL experience is still there. The thing is that these top 16 teams change every year and there is no clear definition which clubs are top teams at the moment. But that’s the charm of it.

Football is very tribal. People want to dream that their local club have a shot to participate and maybe win the Champions league. Think of Leicester and Girona. In the Netherlands there is now a club called NEC and they have a shot to qualify for it, and that by itself is a historic moment for the club.

Exactly. Look at Bodø/Glimt from northern Norway. In 2017 they played in Norwegian 2. division and in 2020 they played AC Milan in the Europa League and won the top division in Norway and it's only been better since. BUT, this too will end at some point and another team will take their spot at the top. Maybe my team that has been struggling for decades will get their shit together and start winning something? That is much more exciting than seeing the same 10-20 money doped teams play matches all over the world to generate even more money.

You mean, its the dullest.

Imagine never having any relegation risk for being crap. Without divisions and removal of risk, what's the point?

Without the chance to work at a lower level and through simply being good, getting a team promoted how are you supposed to inspire? NFL, is both the least and the most American sport there is.

PSG has won 8 of the last 10 Ligue 1. Bayern 9 of the last 10 Bubdesliga. Barcelona/Real Madrid 9 of the last 10 La Liga.

That’s exciting? There’s 50+ teams in those leagues that stand NO shot of ever winning a championship, ever. The argument I’ve seen in this thread is either 1) it’s thrilling when my favorite average team upsets the backups of one of the powerhouses and 2) it’s exciting to get relegated and then come back.

You know what’s even more exciting…winning a championship. And every August every NFL fan starts with the hope and belief that this is their year. NFL has Leicester-lite situations every few years. Patriots were worst 2 years ago, lose in the championship the next year.

I will give credit to the Premier League - they’re doing it right. As mentioned, too 15-20 teams are competitive and could win a title in a given year. You know why it’s the best league - they set up a revenue sharing model similar to US leagues. Equal chance of winning = most excitement for fans of the entire league.

> every team can beat any other any given night

I know this has been an NFL slogan for decades but i actually feel like it's less true in the NFL than in a lot of other sports--soccer included.

I also think US leagues could really benefit from the idea of relegation

Putting all of the ethical issues aside, do you know how fucking boring this would be?

You can fuck right off trying to create a closed league where only a "chosen" few clubs take part.

It might just be an entertainment spectacle to you but for others it's very tied into local identity.

The idea that outside money men should be allowed to come in and destroy open competition is highly offensive to me.

The best years in football are when a smaller club gets a run of luck and beats the big boys. Or when one of the super clubs gets relegated and their fans have experience a season or two in the lower leagues.

You're not taking that away from us without a fight!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com