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.
>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.
It's not an illusion. It has happened. Leicester played in the third division in 2008-2009 and won the Premier League 7 years later.
Leipzig used to only play in a regional division 10 years ago and are now in the top of the Bundes Liga and reached the semi-finals of the champions league.
Although rare and improbable it does keep a dream alive for many fans. And dreams are part of the entertainment.
It can also go the other way around. Schalke 04 used to be a top 5 Bundes Liga team and are now relegated. This drama is exactly what makes the football pyramid charming.
I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time?
I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous of the pyramid model.
There have been amateur teams rising through the ranks to best national leagues.. One example in Denmark was Hobro, and they didn't even have money for a decent stadion to play their games on.
well schalke got relegated because of missmanagement, so yeah it was money oriented.
and rb leipzig also got infused with money, but way way less than people think of and they kept their places without additional infusions, so... I guess they earned their placed, because rb leipzig actually put most of the money into infrastructure, which is probably what made the so successful.
Yes. Leicester's rise through the system was a direct result of money being pumped in by their owner, a foreign billionaire.
They were purchased 5 years prior to winning the Premier League and immediately upgraded their sponsorships, facilities, staff, and players.
Did money make them win the premier league? No, but it couldn't have happened without it and it had nothing to do with meritocracy or the local community.
After briefly being relegated to the third tier (for just a season, first time ever) for a season, they immediately bounced back up to the second tier in 2009-10 and then they were bought by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, a Thai travel and retail billionaire and started their rise to the top of the Premier League.
Yes, the economics of the sport are prett distorted even under the current system. It is unlikely that a team can accomplish promotion to a higher league year after year. However, poorer teams can level the financial playing field somewhat if they are able to sell star players to teams in a higher division.
It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany).
Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?
This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?
My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.
Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.
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.