royalbalou
Player Valuation: £20m
Haha no worries...at least baseball has given me a clue...do they need a catcher? (Tim Howard)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- Status
Haha no worries...at least baseball has given me a clue...do they need a catcher? (Tim Howard)
Not sure exactly what you're after here, but in simplest terms, Moneyball is not too far from "buy low, sell high." Money doesn't work as well for larger clubs, as Allezfan said, because the market is smaller for more expensive players.
Can we please stop with the "Moneyball" translations, because they're getting further and further off point. This point above makes no sense. "Cartels" try to restrict competition. The financial rules in American sports, such as salary caps and other spending restrictions that aren't in place in most football leagues, were created with the sole intent of creating parity, or equal opportunities for all teams to compete at the same level, both financially and on the field. And none of this has anything to do with a "Moneyball" theory anyway. It's like you're just using the phrase "Moneyball" to try to equate it to all of American sports.
I get that this whole topic arose from the question of having American owners, and the worry that seems to cause about whether they'd be successful or not. It's hardly worth dissecting this much anyway - every sport is different, and every franchise/club is different. Stan Kroenke is seen by many in the U.S. at this very moment as an evil, greedy, horrible owner, due to his desire to move his American football team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. On the flip side, Arsenal, his PL team, have a pretty solid chance at their first league title in a number of years and certainly have a solid foundation and bright future.
Perhaps it's not worth dissecting this to death, when no one will ever know until it happens.
I assume this means "people with a different opinion than me"?
Shall I call everyone else an 'anti board quilt'? Nah, not for me. I'd rather discuss than sling mud.
It's ok to disagree without ridiculing others, folks.
Europeanst end to view all leagues without a promotion and relegation system as a cartel. And rightly so, imo. In england, I could go out start a club in my garden and win the champions league with it in 3 years (fa cup winner, europea league winner, cl winner).
Afc wimbledon, who are currently a league club, were started by disgruntled fans and they could win the premier league within 5 years. Wigan won the fa cup and were a local pub league team for most of their history.
In the american leagues without promotion or relagtion that can't happen. There is no way for fan created teams to get into the league. Hence it's a cartel.
USABlue
Player Valuation: £70m
More competition and parity in these cartels than Ligue 1, Bundesliga and la liga...
Firstly, can I play in goal for your team? I'm decent.
Secondly, wasn't the 'no relegation' notion vetoed by the league clubs almost unanimously a couple of years back? I'm surprised they vetoed it in all honesty, but it's a good thing for sporting integrity (please don't laugh at that).
Yet more opportunity to exploit market inefficiencies when you add all these leagues. More opportunity for good economic/data analysis (aka, moneyball) for a club like Everton than the Athletics, who operate in a relatively restricted talent pool.
Thuck ma Baws
Player Valuation: £8m
Only if you're in it. If you're not then you need to come up with $$$$$$$ not just be good enough.
Montpellier and Wolfsburg were amatuer clubs in the 70s who won the main league title of their country in the last ten years.
The promotion system allows challenges form beyond the cartel. No non NBA team will ever win the nba. A non premier league team will win the premier league, man city did it.
USABlue
Player Valuation: £70m
I'm talking about it this day and age...of course if you create a team and pour a billion into it could compete but at the end of the day in the current football land scape the richest teams are the most sucessful. City, psg, etc have bought sucess, has nothing to do with sporting integrity
It was only 1987 when relegation from the football league was intoduced, tbf. Before then you could stay up as long as you won an election with the other clubs voting. I'm pretty glad that's gone away.
Montpellier won the league 3 years back with one of the smallest budgets in the country, tbf.
The point remains that relegation absoloutly changes the way a sporting owner has to think. What is successful techniques in a sporting league in america will not work in a league with relegation, no salary gap and no restraints on buying players.
Any american owner will have to adjust their way of thinking or they won't succeed here.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Me too. Remember someone like Workington or something stayed in Div 4 year after year despite being dreadful!
Can't see any argument that the PL has more parity/competition than American sports. In 23 years you've had 5 clubs win the title: United (13), Chelsea (4), Arsenal (3), City (2), and Blackburn. The NBA--which has the least parity of the NA sports--has seen 8 clubs win the title in that same span: Lakers (5), Spurs (5), Bulls (3), Heat (3), Celtics, Mavericks, Pistons, Warriors.
Maybe if you want to extend back another 23 or 46 years you'll find more parity among top-flight English football, but at this point the question becomes absurd because you're comparing entirely different structures.
- Status