- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lack of parity in club leauges
Posted on 8/23/10 at 2:54 pm to UASports23
Posted on 8/23/10 at 2:54 pm to UASports23
and Tampa?
1
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
They've only been to the playoffs once in their history? I think ? (no sarcasm)
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:11 pm to UASports23
But they've built a team that has seriously contended the last 3 years with a small payroll
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:13 pm to UASports23
Also MLB teams have a far greater chance of having a domestic based billionaire owning and supporting their respective club. England in particular (and other European clubs to an extent) either need a foreign owner to invest money or a large number of open market shares to be bought by investors. England has a population of 50 million people and therefore has far fewer billionaires with enough money to create a winning squad. Foreign investors only want to buy clubs with decent tradition and above average fan support. Teams like Bolton, Stoke City, and Wigan in small towns aren't sexy enough to attract big money. Almost all US teams are in cities bigger than those housing EPL teams besides Manchester and London.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:26 pm to thenry712
Some people have a problem with the lack of parity in European soccer because their are no playoffs at the end of the regular season.
I personally love the European leagues....38 games. Just enough to ensure the best team does win the league, but not too many where the games are meaningless.
I personally love the European leagues....38 games. Just enough to ensure the best team does win the league, but not too many where the games are meaningless.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:27 pm to UASports23
quote:
HAHAHAHA.
Since 1985, only six teams have won the World Series with the highest player payroll in the game.
Drayton McClain is one of the richest owners and he doesnt spend shite on the Astros. A lot also depends on the owners frugality as they all have money; if you can own a professional baseball team you have money
This post was edited on 8/23/10 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:28 pm to WelcomeToDeathValley
we can't compare the world series... who had the best record at the end of the regular season?
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:31 pm to chalmetteowl
they dont make their money back by having the best regular season record, they make money from playoff and WS revenue. Think about all the memorbillia they sell after winning a world series? Playoff ticket prices etc.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:34 pm to WelcomeToDeathValley
You think the Mariners didn't make a killing in profit during their record breaking season. Gate revenues are the most profitable aspect of winning regular season. Very few teams that have losing seasons manage to sell out the stadiums and make gate profits.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 3:51 pm to thenry712
Teams make at least 12 million + in playoff revenue, for a team like the Pirates that would equal their operating income.
edit:
Gate receipts are between 20-30 million for the regular season, deep run in the playoffs covers half of that.
edit:
Gate receipts are between 20-30 million for the regular season, deep run in the playoffs covers half of that.
This post was edited on 8/23/10 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 8/23/10 at 5:20 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP concerning the competitive balance. It is worse than any major US sports league.
I'd certainly love to see some kind of salary cap where Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, Inter ect can't stockpile so many of the top players simply because there would be a lot more great match-ups. However that you're dealing with so many different leagues with differing budgets probably makes it a pipe dream.
I still passionately watch the matches and root for Roma against Inter empire (just like I suffer through long dry spells with the Padres.) However, I can also say that I get little pleasure out of Roma beating Cesena and Cagliari.
I'd certainly love to see some kind of salary cap where Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, Inter ect can't stockpile so many of the top players simply because there would be a lot more great match-ups. However that you're dealing with so many different leagues with differing budgets probably makes it a pipe dream.
I still passionately watch the matches and root for Roma against Inter empire (just like I suffer through long dry spells with the Padres.) However, I can also say that I get little pleasure out of Roma beating Cesena and Cagliari.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 5:22 pm to wm72
quote:
I'd certainly love to see some kind of salary cap where Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, Inter ect can't stockpile so many of the top players simply because there would be a lot more great match-ups. However that you're dealing with so many different leagues with differing budgets probably makes it a pipe dream.
Thats why you have the champions league... so all the best team who dominate everything else can have some challenges
Posted on 8/23/10 at 5:30 pm to petar
quote:
Thats why you have the champions league... so all the best team who dominate everything else can have some challenge
Agree to an extent. But even the CL would be a lot better, in my opinion, if it weren't quite so top heavy that recent "upsets" have been clubs as wealthy and storied as Inter and AC Milan winning.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 5:34 pm to Draconian Sanctions
google scottish cup upsets after that google F.A. cup upsets then get back to me please. 
Posted on 8/23/10 at 5:53 pm to LSUCanFAN
quote:
google scottish cup upsets after that google F.A. cup upsets
Are not League Championships. And get the lower teams no CL money.
Posted on 8/23/10 at 11:58 pm to glassman
Comparing championships between soccer and baseball doesn't really work as an argument because the baseball team with the best record at the end of the year doesn't win the championship; they have to do the playoff thing, where it becomes a crap shoot.
It's still the higher payroll teams making the playoffs on a more consistent basis, just like it's the higher payroll clubs in Europe qualifying for CL spots. Milan won 2 CLs (nearly 3) this past decade and only won Serie A once. The Red Sox won 2 World Series and only had the best record in baseball once (tied with the Indians). Both were competing for titles on a yearly basis.
Blackburn Rovers and the Florida Marlins won the Premier League and World Series in the '90s, respectively, after heavy investment from their owners. Both sank in the standings after payroll was dumped.
Smaller market teams might win all the time, but not smaller budget teams. So basically, soccer and baseball are rather similar.
It's still the higher payroll teams making the playoffs on a more consistent basis, just like it's the higher payroll clubs in Europe qualifying for CL spots. Milan won 2 CLs (nearly 3) this past decade and only won Serie A once. The Red Sox won 2 World Series and only had the best record in baseball once (tied with the Indians). Both were competing for titles on a yearly basis.
Blackburn Rovers and the Florida Marlins won the Premier League and World Series in the '90s, respectively, after heavy investment from their owners. Both sank in the standings after payroll was dumped.
Smaller market teams might win all the time, but not smaller budget teams. So basically, soccer and baseball are rather similar.
Posted on 8/24/10 at 12:31 am to Draconian Sanctions
this is why for the most part I think the NFL does it best. All 32 teams get the same salary cap.
Posted on 8/24/10 at 6:03 am to adammwilson
It's one of the most frustrating aspects of the sport for me. Even if Charlton don't have a crack at the title, the fact that realistically only three or four teams ever do is a real problem IMO. It wasn't always like this, only really since the introduction of the Premier League in 1992.
Posted on 8/24/10 at 6:11 am to adammwilson
quote:
this is why for the most part I think the NFL does it best
Another important factor is TV revenue. The NFL splits it evenly. Baseball and soccer have huge disparities from team to team.
Posted on 8/24/10 at 6:12 am to glassman
smaller 2nd and 3rd division clubs share gates with big clubs with huge travelling support...it's like winning the national lottery and sorry UEFA Cup is an enourmous amount of money...the moment you are promoted to the EPL TV money kicks in...pardon my Scottishness but a shrewd utilization of cash and a little luck has helped a good number of clubs...CL is not the end all be all Glasser contrary to the thinking on this board... 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News