Football (Soccer) Thread

[Jacob]

If they were associations of amateur enthusiasts then that is not the same.

Right. The similarity is that the leagues were formed by the clubs. The difference is that the clubs in Europe were actual clubs, whereas the ones in the US were businesses from the get-go.

[crazy canuck]

If they were associations of amateur enthusiasts then that is not the same.

Right. The similarity is that the leagues were formed by the clubs. The difference is that the clubs in Europe were actual clubs, whereas the ones in the US were businesses from the get-go.

Mostly correct.  But there are some clubs, like the WhiteCaps, which draw upon a long history (well for these parts) so they are not being created from whole cloth.

[Valmy]

I am talking about how our league systems were formed in the 19th and early 20th centuries though. The fact that the Whitecaps might have formed a certain way has nothing to do with why the league structure exists. There were a few exceptions even then, the now Arizona Cardinals of the NFL were originally formed as an amateur team I think, they predate the NFL by several years. But generally what Jake said is right.

[crazy canuck]

But generally what Jake said is right.

That is why I said, "mostly correct"!


I am beginning to remember why I havent logged on for so long.

[Valmy]

But generally what Jake said is right.

That is why I said, "mostly correct"!


I am beginning to remember why I havent logged on for so long.

I apologize I was just clarifying. Sometimes I feel like I have a hard time getting my point across.

[crazy canuck]

  No problem

[alfred russel]

European football is very free market. Anyone can theoretically utterly collapse into oblivion or rise from nothing to the top.

American football is very controlled. A closed market where the best remain the best and there can never be change.

I vigorously disagree that the American sports system is not free market. A true "free market" without government interference isn't a land of open competition in many aspects of the economy: it is an environment where businesses collude together to keep out competition, fix the price and conditions of labor, and obtain monopolistic pricing through collective action.

[crazy canuck]

European football is very free market. Anyone can theoretically utterly collapse into oblivion or rise from nothing to the top.

American football is very controlled. A closed market where the best remain the best and there can never be change.

I vigorously disagree that the American sports system is not free market. A true "free market" without government interference isn't a land of open competition in many aspects of the economy: it is an environment where businesses collude together to keep out competition, fix the price and conditions of labor, and obtain monopolistic pricing through collective action.

I think you might be missing his point.  The NFL is a closed club.  The Premier League is not.

[Barrister]

European football is very free market. Anyone can theoretically utterly collapse into oblivion or rise from nothing to the top.

American football is very controlled. A closed market where the best remain the best and there can never be change.

I vigorously disagree that the American sports system is not free market. A true "free market" without government interference isn't a land of open competition in many aspects of the economy: it is an environment where businesses collude together to keep out competition, fix the price and conditions of labor, and obtain monopolistic pricing through collective action.

I think you might be missing his point.  The NFL is a closed club.  The Premier League is not.

I think you're missing Dorsey's point.

[crazy canuck]

European football is very free market. Anyone can theoretically utterly collapse into oblivion or rise from nothing to the top.

American football is very controlled. A closed market where the best remain the best and there can never be change.

I vigorously disagree that the American sports system is not free market. A true "free market" without government interference isn't a land of open competition in many aspects of the economy: it is an environment where businesses collude together to keep out competition, fix the price and conditions of labor, and obtain monopolistic pricing through collective action.

I think you might be missing his point.  The NFL is a closed club.  The Premier League is not.

I think you're missing Dorsey's point.

Since he was disagreeing with Tyr, I am missing the point you are making.

[Jacob]

Can someone explain to me what's going on here?

[crazy canuck]

Can someone explain to me what's going on here?

Not entirely sure what BB is on about.  But it seems Dorsey objects to the NFL being characterized as a closed market when compared to the other football.

Not sure how one explains the continued existence of the Browns in the NFL, other than the fact the owner owns the NFL franchise and so can go on sucking for as long as he wants without fear of not being in the NFL.  But perhaps Dorsey has an explanation.

[dps]

I am talking about how our league systems were formed in the 19th and early 20th centuries though. The fact that the Whitecaps might have formed a certain way has nothing to do with why the league structure exists. There were a few exceptions even then, the now Arizona Cardinals of the NFL were originally formed as an amateur team I think, they predate the NFL by several years. But generally what Jake said is right.

I think that you're overlooking differences in the early history of pro baseball and pro football, although the early history of both was a lot more chaotic with league membership more unstable than most people realize.  For example, in the early years of the NFL, there were teams that attended league meetings and paid their due every year, but never played any league games, because they knew they weren't good enough to compete with the stronger teams, but wanted to keep league membership in the hopes of improving and being able to compete in later years.  There were a lot of reforms and a major reorganization of the NFL during the league meetings between the 1932 and 1933 seasons, and after that you didn't see that sort of thing anymore.

As for the Cardinals, yeah, they started off as the Morgan AC in 1898, 22 years before the NFL was founded, but AFAIK by the time the league was organized, they were "normal" team with an owner and all.  Some of the other teams started off as athletic clubs, but also had owners by the time the league came along, while others were founded by businessmen as a business venture from the start   The Packers were a bit of an outlier;  they started off as the company team of a meat packing plant, just a couple of years before the league got started.

In baseball, though, early professional teams started as athletic clubs, and were still basically club teams when the National Association was organized in 1871,  The replacement of the National Association by the National League in 1876 marked the change-over from teams being clubs to being businesses.

[Valmy]

Can someone explain to me what's going on here?

Not entirely sure what BB is on about.  But it seems Dorsey objects to the NFL being characterized as a closed market when compared to the other football.

Not sure how one explains the continued existence of the Browns in the NFL, other than the fact the owner owns the NFL franchise and so can go on sucking for as long as he wants without fear of not being in the NFL.  But perhaps Dorsey has an explanation.

Did you read his post?

[Valmy]

In baseball, though, early professional teams started as athletic clubs, and were still basically club teams when the National Association was organized in 1871,  The replacement of the National Association by the National League in 1876 marked the change-over from teams being clubs to being businesses.

Yeah it was a truly amateur league from the 1850s until the 1870s.