This is good, but generally these owners and these teams don’t lose, unlike in Europe. The Super league was all about creating a system where the richest basically could always maintain the same level of income despite not performing, more or less like the NFL which has a pretty generous safety net.
Say what you want about Soccer in Europe, but it’s a lot more capitalistic than US sports in general - there are no salary caps, no trades for preferential players, no leg-ups in the form of better draft positions for losers. It’s brutal, but also once in a while you’ll get the Leicesters who dominate clubs way above their station. This wasn’t about creating a league of merit - this was about making fixed so nobody could truly fail.
The Leicester season served as a reminder to the sport's biggest clubs that, to your point, their current business success depends on actually having success on the pitch. But the path for creating value in sports is monetizing losses not wins, since the former are easier to come by.
Yes, but that’s why the Super League wanted to lock those in by making sure there was a “permanent” Champions League. But as long as there are these types of financial cliffs which are largely merit-based, it does reward the types of clubs and owners that can think long term - because the era of owners throwing billions down the drain for pure prestige is coming to an end in football.
Try telling this to the quants, they can't handle the truth, haha.
This is good, but generally these owners and these teams don’t lose, unlike in Europe. The Super league was all about creating a system where the richest basically could always maintain the same level of income despite not performing, more or less like the NFL which has a pretty generous safety net.
Say what you want about Soccer in Europe, but it’s a lot more capitalistic than US sports in general - there are no salary caps, no trades for preferential players, no leg-ups in the form of better draft positions for losers. It’s brutal, but also once in a while you’ll get the Leicesters who dominate clubs way above their station. This wasn’t about creating a league of merit - this was about making fixed so nobody could truly fail.
The Leicester season served as a reminder to the sport's biggest clubs that, to your point, their current business success depends on actually having success on the pitch. But the path for creating value in sports is monetizing losses not wins, since the former are easier to come by.
Yes, but that’s why the Super League wanted to lock those in by making sure there was a “permanent” Champions League. But as long as there are these types of financial cliffs which are largely merit-based, it does reward the types of clubs and owners that can think long term - because the era of owners throwing billions down the drain for pure prestige is coming to an end in football.