Capitalism in European soccer compared to American sports

• 

  Bill said,

  Wow. Great post, the irony in the American attitudes is startling to behold. The realities seem to fly directly in the face of most of the archetypal criticisms of soccer by the traditional US sports commentators who are so closed minded with regard to soccer.

  The truth of the matter is that no system is ideal and the excesses of both are causing problems in both. One key aspect of both systems is the power structure of both is directly tied to the problems with each system. Everyone also has a tie to the traditions that provided them their success.

  Each system was engineered in the past and evolved to its current state. To some extent, soccer in the US missed the boat because it waned at the wrong time and was not ready for the inflow of TV revenue that fueled the rise of the major US leagues. The relative lack of revenues in soccer over time ultimately led to the differences we see today. In Europe, the dynamic is reversed although the parallels aren’t complete by any means.

  Of course, the question to ponder is how things move forward? What changes the fortunes of soccer? Does the internet and globalization give soccer the upper hand in claiming market share in the US? How will ESPN’s moves into broadcasting soccer in the US and USA change things? Or does it? How will the same forces change the fortunes of traditional US sports outside the US?

• 

  Shawn Gillogly said,

  A well-reasoned post. I would ask though if you are talking about a “hard” salary cap (like the NFL and NHL) or a “luxury tax” system like MLB and the NBA.

  Personally, I think “hard cap” systems are draconian and unnecessary. They reward teams for refusing to invest in their clubs and don’t even truly aid in terms of parity. Look at the Lions or the Cardinals (before last year’s miracle-run) in the NFL. How long were they dreadful? The Bungles, the Chefs, the Rams since Martz was fired.
  Look at the Clippers in the NBA. The Royals in MLB. The Coyotes in the NHL. There’s so many teams that are perpetually dreadful in North American sports *despite* the cap system. So it’s a bit of a myth that the salary cap “ensures” parity. It ensures the possibility of a more competitive environment in which more teams *may* be successful. But it does not alleviate organizational incompetence or simple profit raking. But a luxury tax can make a team like the Minnesota Twins, for instance, consistently competitive despite severe market disadvantages.

  I have no problem at all with the luxury tax system, provided that there is a hard floor percentage for player salaries. Let’s be honest here. Salary taxes are the protect profit margins. Competitive leagues are an accidental (and happy, the the leagues) byproduct. Now, call me silly. But in the discussion of “overpriced” athletes vs their owners, I am (almost) always going to side with the player.

  Why? Simple. Both may be greedy. That’s an easy thing to condemn, but who wouldn’t want to get as much cash as they could in a similar situation, especially given you harm no one in any real way by doing so. But in all of sports, there is 1 owner I would care to watch. And that’s Mark Cuban. Love him or hate him or both, his antics are great for the game, whatever the NBA thinks. And they’re things a nutty fan could and should do. What’s more, you know he wants to put a winning product on the floor. Other than him, there is not one owner I care one whit for. One owner I want to see in the box or the sidelines. One owner who means *anything* to his sport except perhaps Robert Kraft (and I don’t like everything he does).

  When we go to a sporting event, we go to see the players. So when the owners try to bilk the players, I don’t bite. Why should billionaire owners who can sell their franchise at almost any time for a monstrous profit really be able to do (for instance) what the NHL owners did the players in 02? (And Bettman got his pay doubled since that lockout, isn’t *that* special?)

  So while I would be all for a real luxury tax system in sports world-wide, I am not for a hard cap. But the real issue in world football is not the wage structure. It’s the transfer fees. And what can be done to alleviate that is an entirely different issue. Gazidas’ comments are kinda screwy on that score and he plays a double blind trying to talk about wages when its transfer fees he spends all his time on. What can be done to reduce the (admittedly absurd) transfer fee situation escapes me at present. And it is not helped by the fact Blatter is a hypocrite on the issue. Blasting Man U for “buying players while in debt” last season and then saying Ronaldo’s extortion fee was “good for the game” when Madrid had to take TWO loans to finance it. I think Platini is EPL-hater as well, but at least on this score he was consistent enough to blast Madrid for their avarice.

  To me one thing that should be clear is you can’t withdraw money to buy players. If you can demonstrate (like Man U can) that your debt is serviced and that you can absorb it without consequence, then you can purchase players on your profit margin. But borrowing money to pay transfer fees should be verboten. Now…try to get teams to open their books and comply with that. (hahaha)

• 

  Creaven said,

  Bill — A lot of good questions. I did kind of answer what I think could happen if ESPN went all out on soccer coverage about a month ago. But what I think is clear is that the Internet has opened up European soccer to an American audience; 15 years ago it was almost impossible to follow what was going in Europe.

  Note: I just responded your other comment on the Gold Cup post.

  Shawn — I’m not convinced a hard cap is a bad thing. The problem with the “luxury tax” is that a couple clubs would simple ignore the cap (Manchester City and Real Madrid) which could only widen the gap between the great teams and the really good teams.

  I think a salary cap would tame transfer fees. A really good player (say, Kaka) wouldn’t be worth as much because he would eat up a lot of your cap. If the cap is $1 million a week and Kaka cost you $150,000 a week, he isn’t worth as much in the transfer market because there is a drawback in taking on his salary. Does that make sense?

• Daily Dose: July 16th, 2009 | The Offside said,

  [...] Too much socialism in America, too much capitalism in Europe (Intelligent Soccer) [...]

• Major League Soccer (MLS) Thread - Page 204 - Electronic Arts UK Community said,

  [...] Capitalism in European soccer compared to American sports An interesting article __________________ [...]

• 

  VALDOCH said,

  Sorry but I don’t share most of these ideas. First of all European leagues have more equal fixtures like double round robin format. ALso relegation and promotion system keeps up lots of clubs to survive and have a passionate crowds. You know there is not always success in sports but, passionate fans always keep up being loyal.

  A historic franchise Seattle Sonics’s relocation to Oklohama was ending of my NBA story. After that I never believe that a franchise could have a passionate following in NBA. Still salary cap and draft issues are good for NBA but in European football there was foreighn player limitations which forced clubs to keep their identities and give chance to their youth players. This was abondoneb by EU as you know. If FIFA could start 6+5 rule in football. rich clubs like Real Madrid and Manchester City can’t pay huge fees for all international players.

  So if you say there is more soücialism in NBA than footbal yo should think twice…

• Capitalism in European soccer compared to American sports « Scissors Kick said,

  [...] Capitalism in European soccer compared to American sports “On June 26, Cristiano Ronaldo completed a $132 million transfer from Manchester United to Real Madrid. In strict business terms, Real Madrid bought an asset from another business in hopes of improving its own product. No government, federation or league was going to stand in the way of what Real Madrid thought was a smart business decision.” (Intelligent Soccer) [...]

• 

  James Davidson said,

  but american sport isn’t socialist – it’s hyper capitalist

  run by billionaires, played by millionaires, and just like good capitalist american firms, they don’t allow any new entries to the market – as seen through that corrupt franchise system instead.

  that is the classic capitalist market controlling way as witnessed by the behaviour of american firms in ‘winning’/being given contracts to rebuild post Iraq.

  when capitalism and socialism get too powerful then both create a closed shop.

• 

  Bill said,

  Sports in the United States is run like a monopoly, not at a club/team level, but at a league level. Within the league, it is pure socialism, they want to maintain a high level of competition within the league hence the “anti-American” practice of rewarding failure. Let’s be clear, as far as access talent is concerned the principle is “losers finish first”. The central reason for this practice is the monopolistic structure and practices of the leagues. College sports also play a role as a publicly subsidized farm system for the NBA and NFL. Soccer in the US makes it clear that college sports are a low quality form of developing talent (although its good when the players get an education). The NBA for the most part is weaning itself of college athletes with most players forgoing college in total or in part.

  The real kicker is that just like most monopolies they cannot compete. If the NFL and MLB actually had to compete they would be in real trouble. Of course, they don’t for the most part, the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit about American football. Baseball might actually turn into competition, and by all accounts the fortunes of the US are dropping compared with Asians and Latin America. It will be interesting to see how the NBA copes with competition from Europe. Its clear that the US has lost ground, and may continue to lose ground. The Olympics have been a wake-up call, but slowly, but surely talented players from around the world are catching up.

  The MLS is constructed in the same monopolistic manner. The problem is that its structure actually works to undermine the quality of both professional soccer in the US, the development of talent and ultimately the US’s ability to compete internationally.

• 

  Shawn Gillogly said,

  Bill,

  The simple fact is the quality of MLS play has been increasing consistently, and the talent pool is far deeper now than it would be without a league. You cannot honestly believe that players like Altidore and Dempsey would be plying their trade overseas if not for MLS. They would not have gotten a sniff from the scouting of other clubs from the USL.

  Anything that keeps a first division league in the US *helps* the US’ ability to compete as a matter of fact. If the alternative is a less-than-ideal US 1st division or a NASL-style implosion, can you seriously say you believe that the implosion and the end of professional soccer in this country is to be preferred? That’s not just incorrect, that’s absurd.

  In an ideal world would we want a league where clubs can compete financially with most overseas? Sure. But where would that ideal world come from? We don’t live in it. Given the financial realities of US Soccer as a niche sport, one that could never, in all likelihood, compete with the NFL or even MLB for overall market share, what better structure could there be than one that ensures the viability of the product and the continuity of the structure?

  The fact that so many want *in* on MLS even during a recession belies your argument in itself. Is it the perfect league? No. But show me the league that is. Every structure has issues. A successful World Cup and MLS could easily be in the discussion of the “big 4″ for leagues in the country. 20 years ago when it started, only the dreamers could’ve imagined that would ever happened. Most would’ve been content with a viable niche league with its own facilities (that is, where it is now).

  I’m not an MLS sycophant. See my rant about the Canadian franchises for proof of that. But I don’t see how anyone can say MLS has “hurt” the talent pool for USSF. What hurts the talent pool is two fold;

  1) The absurdity that is College Soccer in the US.

  2) The lack of a uniform National Structure, including a football-knowledgeable director (vice a money man like Gazidas) at the USSF.

• 

  Bill said,

  Shawn,

  I agree that MLS helps. Its better to have pro soccer in the US than not. MLS is a springboard for some US talent, but I’d argue that it doesn’t do it at the standard of foreign leagues.

  The problem with MLS is that it doesn’t help as much as it could. I’m arguing that the US sports system works for isolated sports, but has problems if there is real competition. Soccer represents real competition at the international level. Because of how MLS is strucutred, the way college soccer works and massive shortcomings in the youth system, the USA is under-performing.

  I don’t see soccer overtaking NFL or NBA any time soon, but I think hockey and baseball can be overtaken. Our biggest problem is how the game is structured in this country at the highest levels. I believe the media issues are starting to turn in a positive direction.

  Sooner or later it will either transition to something more in step with club soccer around the World, or it will stagnate. The US fan is getting a greater availability of foreign games on TV with each passing year. Something will have to give, the MLS will have to step it up or fail to grow.

• 

  Shawn Gillogly said,

  Bill,

  I agree that MLS will eventually have to evolve into a setup more akin to the international club game. But I don’t think it’s fair to expect that process overnight. Nor do I ever see MLS accepting a pyramid structure with relegation and promotion. The markets in this country are so much more spread out than in others as to make that prohibitive.

  I think the league will always have some kind of cost-control system. But as time goes on it will be able to raise the cap and increase the means to gain exemptions. And while I accept that TV/media exposure of the differences is useful, I reject utterly the frequent attitude of “MLS is not the EPL, so why should I watch it?” so many US “fans” have. The EPL is not the EPL to most of these people, below the big 4. The Dutch, Belgian, and other leagues are not demonstrably better than MLS once you get past the recurring Champion’s League representatives. Should no one watch PSV, the Old Firm, or Lyon because *they* aren’t in the EPL?

  I think the main issues limiting player development in the US are at the amateur, not professional, levels.

  I agree we need a system more akin to the overseas model. Specifically we need for USSF and MLS to work to develop youth club soccer in this country as a viable feeder system for dedicated players against the Collegiate model. College soccer’s level of play is horrifically poor. The rampant substitutions and limited instruction in the game players get (much of it from the folly of the NCAA rules system and the myth of the scholar-athlete) is a large part of why US players enter the professional game far behind their European counterparts.

  The ODP helps nothing as well. It is concentrated on white suburbia and does nothing to get into the Hispanic and African American demographics where more and more skilled players could be found. The so-called ODP discoveries were already going to be found with minimal scouting.

  If you want to point at areas that stagnate US player growth, those are the issues that contribute most directly to problems in our overall talent pool. MLS, IMHO, does a pretty good job given what it is receiving and the limited resources it has (especially at a time when the economy is brutal).

  That’s the reason I say we need a football mind, not a bean counter, overseeing the USSF. Their ties to the kleptocrat Blatter are useful for the 22 WC bid. Other than that, they serve the long term interests of the sport in this country not one bit.

• 

  Bill said,

  Shawn,

  I think we’re largely in complete agreement especially with regard to player development, college and youth soccer.

  You correctly point out how bad the ODP program does with regard to talent, but its deeper than this. ODP is an expensive pay to play system that excludes many. I took a look at the player pool in the youth ranks for the “relative age effect”.

  At the U-15 level its clear that its a huge advantage to be born in the first quarter of the year. By the time the players are adults, this effect is gone. This means that the youth system is missing a large number of future professionals, and focusing on early maturing players.

  What’s the point? This problem has been acknowledged around the world. If the USA can more effectively marshal its talent, the USA can improve its talent pool and compete more effectively. The only competitions that really matter is the World Cup and Olympics. At levels below this, the goal needs to be player development.

  The ODP system is simply an extension of the club soccer system, which operates by the same principles. It is a reflection of what happens at the lower levels. A lot of the ODP and by extension the youth clubs try to win by recruiting a bunch of big, fast early maturing kids onto teams. Those teams then try to overpower their opponents by playing power soccer. Unfortunately, we continue to see this form of the game into College, USL, MLS, youth National and adult National teams.

  Ultimately, the US faces equal or better athletes who play the game with better skills and better tactics. My problem with this outcome is that it does not have to be this way. The US has enough talent already to do better. We don’t do better because the power structure in this county has a vested interest in keeping things the same.

  The youth systems in other countries are driven by the professional clubs. These clubs have exactly one goal in mind: create players who can contribute to the success of the first team. As such they want to find players like Lionel Messi who very likely would be completely ignored by the US system. This is where the US system really fails. We have local youth clubs that only care about the competitive success of the youth teams, which leads to the lousy player development model we have. Honestly ask yourself, could Messi, Xavi or Iniesta come from the US system? I’m guessing they’d get lost.

• 

  Beaumont Livingston said,

  Anyone notice the Inter lineup on ESPN tonight in the game vs America? Santon’s a forward, and Stankovic is a defender!

• 

  Bill said,

  ESPN makes America look dumb.

  They put all the team lineups in 4-4-2. They had Sheva listed as a midfielder yesterday! What are they thinking? The problem is they aren’t.

  It might actually be a good idea to give Americans some exposure to the texture, complexity and real beauty of the game. The whole idea that every team is in a 4-4-2 is just like the British press’ practice of putting all the lineups out in a 2-3-5 years (and decades) after that formation went out of practice.

  Maybe it might be a good idea to actually expose the US soccer viewer to something new like actual tactics. The game has so much more to offer than they present. Its richness of the game is the ticket to success, not the way ESPN approaches it. My 12 year old son knows more about the game than the announcers, its absolutely embarrassing.

• 

  football (american) said,

  Capitalism is not good for soccer. It will affect it adversely.

• 

  VitalikGromovss said,

  hahaha ! this is good shit

Add A Comment