The Football Club class system: Help a Yank out

[KingsX]

English football developed with promotion and relegation -- mobility built in.  So how did a fairly rigid club hierarchy become its most popular feature?

 

The “working man’s game” revolves round a few clubs raised to the nobility in a bygone era.  Big Clubs which consume most of the oxygen as if by right.  And not only in the national media.  So many supporters of other clubs defend to the death the ongoing importance of “proper big clubs” … Arsenal …United … NUFC … based on the size of the manor (stadium) and the titles taken in ancient wars.

 

The Who’s Who list is not about who’s doing best now, is it?  It’s about antique silverware, the spoils of forgotten campaigns.

 

New wealth can buy in.  But push comes to shove, even the common man in the Midlands gets sniffy if your great-great-great wasn’t in the Peerage.  “At least Chelsea were minor nobility.  But Man City -- really?”  Show us the family silver or GTFO.

 

Who wants to see a well run. rising club like Brentford -- or Leicester?  The punters prefer United in the grasp of embezzlers who can’t field a watchable side on a billion pounds a year.  Or even Leeds under an Argentine nutcase.

 

If Arsenal were to drop, even if they stayed down 20 years, “when are AFC coming back up” would be 90% of the Championship discussion for the duration. 

 

You abolished hereditary Lords.  But you’d abolish the monarchy before you gave up this ingrained hierarchy in your national sport.  Why??

 

[Greg2607]

well ultimately, because those big clubs have become big clubs through historic success. Therefore their fan bases and stadiums (and silverware for that matter) have grown accordingly. They tend to dominate the conversation because by default, more people are talking about them, or interested in news about them

 

everyone actually loves a "young upstart".  The Leicester story was global news afterall. 

 

But budgets and spending power will ultimately revert to the mean and those big clubs will remain big clubs. 

 

There are historic instances where a smaller regional club will do well for a period of time, but they typically fall away (see Nottingham Forest as a good example) 

 

Mega money coming into the sport has resulted in more much of a closed shop than it used to, simply through the vast number of resources required to compete with the very biggest clubs (spending power is limited to a percentage of turnover.  Ergo, bigger commercial revenue's via larger fanbase and bigger stadiums, makes it harder for the smaller clubs to compete)

 

it is still, technically a meritocracy (see aforementioned Leicester success)

 

 

Edited 5 January 2022 by Greg2607

[MPH]

36 minutes ago, KingsX said:

.

 

New wealth can buy in.  But push comes to shove, even the common man in the Midlands gets sniffy if your great-great-great wasn’t in the Peerage.  “At least Chelsea were minor nobility.  But Man City -- really?”  Show us the family silver or GTFO.

. 

 

You abolished hereditary Lords.  But you’d abolish the monarchy before you gave up this ingrained hierarchy in your national sport.  Why??

 

 

 

ultimately, it’s a rewards based system. You play well, you get the results, you get the rewards , better players want to play for you , etc. Idealistic maybe  but that’s the bottom line- proven by ourselves! 
 

 

what I don’t understand, baring  in mind I have lived in the states for about ten years now, is the American professional sports system… play badly, lose often and you seem to get rewarded with the best young players…  player registration is not even acquired by the club… held by the MLS isn’t it? No promotion no relegation..  fight your way to the top of the pile and you’ll be rewarded with crap young players. Where’s the motivation to win there?

[Stadt]

It's only particularly rigid at the very upper echelons and that's a recent development, relatively.

 

There's a lot to dislike about English football but there's still been more different winners (5) over the past 10 years than Germany (2), Italy (2) and Spain (3).

 

Unlike most other European leagues, besides breaks for the wars, there's a clear lineage to the league system. Especially as most teams have been around longer and we have an additional domestic trophy - more teams have had the chance to win more trophies. 

 

A great deal of clubs have extensive honours lists and not all of them can sit at the top table. It's unsurprising they carp on about their trophy haul as a source of pride so they feel more relevant.

 

Post-millennium, a handful of clubs have been in near enough all 4 professional divisions, won trophies and played in Europe in Portsmouth, Wigan & Swansea. Plus Bournemouth, Sheffield United & Wolves rocketing up the leagues at different points.

 

The problem is the glass ceiling the mid-late PL era has witnessed. The vicious cycle of Champions League cash, increased prestige & opportunities lends itself to elite pulling the ladder up behind them.

 

The only clubs to have established themselves as the nouveau elite have chucked billions at it. Even now, I don't think Newcastle will actually be able to crack it properly - money alone isn't an absolute guarantee of success. Manchester United and Barcelona have shown extraordinary amounts of money can be more of a hinderance.

 

 

Edited 5 January 2022 by Stadt

[davieG]

The money from the Champions League has distorted the  PL at the top, not only does it create a financial based closed shop but it also attracts money hoarders from around the world as they see easy pickings. 

 

The money from the PL is big but even the lions share of that goes to the teams at the top who are able to sustain their position due to the extra income they get from the CL.

 

For that you can blame UEFA who quite obviously do not have the over all European football family in mind as those that administer it are ti busy trying to get their own snouts in the the trough.

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

ultimately, it’s a rewards based system. You play well, you get the results, you get the rewards , better players want to play for you , etc. Idealistic maybe  but that’s the bottom line- proven by ourselves! 
 

 

what I don’t understand, baring  in mind I have lived in the states for about ten years now, is the American professional sports system… play badly, lose often and you seem to get rewarded with the best young players…  player registration is not even acquired by the club… held by the MLS isn’t it? No promotion no relegation..  fight your way to the top of the pile and you’ll be rewarded with crap young players. Where’s the motivation to win there?

 

MLS uses a weird, cobbled-together system probably not worth discussing.  I agree, promotion/relegation would hugely improve it.  But owners would rather (a) not face the threat and (b) collect a $300M franchise fee from each new club. 

 

In any case, promotion/relegation is a strawman where American sports are concerned.  A pyramid of independent clubs is no longer possible.  The pyramid does persist in the older pro sports (baseball and hockey), but is mainly affiliated clubs.  At any level above semi-pro, player registrations are held mainly or entirely by the top league clubs.

 

The incentives for clubs and players to win are playoff bonuses (which aren’t chump change) … and of course a measure of fame and glory.  In most cases that remains sufficient.  But as you know, in recent years, a few franchises have decided that maintaining a minimum payroll and/or tanking to get top draft picks, beats making an honest effort.  If only there was a place to relegate them to.

 

But I’m not really looking to compare two different systems.  More to understand why Joe Footy Fan so often insists upon upholding the importance of a club (not his own) based on “size” or ancient titles.  The current discussion in the Pearson/Bristol thread, is comparing the size and honors lists of clubs, some of which haven’t seen the top division in decades.

 

It’s not like that in the States.  The Giants, Lions and Browns were the perennial champs as the NFL became the national obsession.  Now they mostly suck, and fair enough.  No one gets hot and bothered when they come to town.  The New York Yankees are the only “Man United” across our top leagues -- the exception that proves the rule .

[purpleronnie]

I wonder how many more teams can join the MLS?, there are so many that want to due to the boom in soccer in the states.

 

The leagues already play 34 league games a season then the play offs games.

 

It's a bit weird how they juggle which each team plays each season, it used to be that each team would play every team in the division then some games played across-conference, then they decided that teams should play the closest teams geographically 3 times and less games against the opposing division.

 

I think they'll end up adding more teams and eventually wont have any cross conference games until the play offs.  Which could mean they can add quite a few new teams to each conference.

[SkidsFox]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

The money from the Champions League has distorted the  PL at the top, not only does it create a financial based closed shop but it also attracts money hoarders from around the world as they see easy pickings. 

 

The money from the PL is big but even the lions share of that goes to the teams at the top who are able to sustain their position due to the extra income they get from the CL.

 

For that you can blame UEFA who quite obviously do not have the over all European football family in mind as those that administer it are ti busy trying to get their own snouts in the the trough.

Is the problem the way we allow foreign interests to buy up EPL clubs? Obviously there is a difference between foreign business types buying clubs like Arsenal, Pool and Leicester, and the plutocrat/state entities that bought up Chelsea and Man City (and now Newcastle). But maybe it's now too late to stop the rot?

[Aus Fox]

5 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

MLS uses a weird, cobbled-together system probably not worth discussing.  I agree, promotion/relegation would hugely improve it.  But owners would rather (a) not face the threat and (b) collect a $300M franchise fee from each new club. 

 

In any case, promotion/relegation is a strawman where American sports are concerned.  A pyramid of independent clubs is no longer possible.  The pyramid does persist in the older pro sports (baseball and hockey), but is mainly affiliated clubs.  At any level above semi-pro, player registrations are held mainly or entirely by the top league clubs.

 

The incentives for clubs and players to win are playoff bonuses (which aren’t chump change) … and of course a measure of fame and glory.  In most cases that remains sufficient.  But as you know, in recent years, a few franchises have decided that maintaining a minimum payroll and/or tanking to get top draft picks, beats making an honest effort.  If only there was a place to relegate them to.

 

But I’m not really looking to compare two different systems.  More to understand why Joe Footy Fan so often insists upon upholding the importance of a club (not his own) based on “size” or ancient titles.  The current discussion in the Pearson/Bristol thread, is comparing the size and honors lists of clubs, some of which haven’t seen the top division in decades.

 

It’s not like that in the States.  The Giants, Lions and Browns were the perennial champs as the NFL became the national obsession.  Now they mostly suck, and fair enough.  No one gets hot and bothered when they come to town.  The New York Yankees are the only “Man United” across our top leagues -- the exception that proves the rule .

I don’t necessarily think they do, the media does drive a lot of the big club love, but this is usually based on attracting the most viewers/readers. If you are advertising a Championship game Forest, Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday have much bigger supporter base than Luton, Blackpool or Peterborough. your average fan, however, loves seeing big clubs go down - Leeds, Man City, Newcastle. 
One of the best thing about the promotion relegation system is almost every game means something and you don’t get the throwing of games. I’m not sure what it’s like in The US, but in Australia where they have a similar system with the team finishing bottom of the table receiving higher draft picks and better players, once a team can’t make finals, there are a lot of games which are dead rubbers and lots of scandals around throwing games to finish lower and get better players.

If you look at the last 2 or 3 weeks of the PL season, usually most teams are still playing for something, whether the league title, a CL spot, a European spot or staying up.

[OntarioFox]

Having the "hierarchy" gives the underdog something to aim at.

Football would be so, so boring without "big" teams to beat. Our 2016 triumph would have barely registered without the concept of an "elite" and us being the 5000-1 underdog. The same applies to our FA Cup triumph, mere weeks after Chelsea had been one of the breakaway clubs trying to run off to the European Super League.

 

There have also been domestic cup triumphs for ourselves and others in recent times that are still talked about in hallowed terms, because while rare occurences, they are still ultimately possible when it's 11 vs 11 on a grass pitch.

I don't wanna sound patronising, but American sports fans don't really "get it", because your sports systems are largely set up to provide an even financial playing field, and lack a lot of the organic growth from local communities that went hand-in-hand with the birth of the sport in Europe (and, to an extent, on other continents, especially South America). Even then, you get more dominant teams over periods, like the Patriots or the Lakers in the 2000s.

 

In a strange way, I think the system we have now plays perfectly into the historic reality of the sport, from way before the Premier League distorted everything way beyond reasonable logic. Across not just the UK but the entirety of Europe - football grew from working class roots and quickly became seen as a theatre in which the little guy had a shot against rich adversaries. Even back in the 60s and 70s, while the money floating around was small change by modern standards, you had rich and poor clubs, playboys (George Best springs to mind alongside a whole heap of continental legends) and certain teams establishing both sporting and financial dominance.

 

It just makes whatever the small guys acheive that bit more special than, say, the Browns making the Superbowl. And the likes of ourselves, Portsmouth, Wigan and co. prove it can be done.

Ask any Leicester fan what they think of the past 10 years following our club, and most will mention, at least in passing, how much joy they've gotten from being the team to get the "big 4/5/6" sweating under their collar.

Edited 6 January 2022 by OntarioFox

[Spudulike]

29 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

Having the "hierarchy" gives the underdog something to aim at.

Football would be so, so boring without "big" teams to beat. Our 2016 triumph would have barely registered without the concept of an "elite" and us being the 5000-1 underdog. The same applies to our FA Cup triumph, mere weeks after Chelsea had been one of the breakaway clubs trying to run off to the European Super League.

 

There have also been domestic cup triumphs for ourselves and others in recent times that are still talked about in hallowed terms, because while rare occurences, they are still ultimately possible when it's 11 vs 11 on a grass pitch.

I don't wanna sound patronising, but American sports fans don't really "get it", because your sports systems are largely set up to provide an even financial playing field, and lack a lot of the organic growth from local communities that went hand-in-hand with the birth of the sport in Europe (and, to an extent, on other continents, especially South America). Even then, you get more dominant teams over periods, like the Patriots or the Lakers in the 2000s.

 

In a strange way, I think the system we have now plays perfectly into the historic reality of the sport, from way before the Premier League distorted everything way beyond reasonable logic. Across not just the UK but the entirety of Europe - football grew from working class roots and quickly became seen as a theatre in which the little guy had a shot against rich adversaries. Even back in the 60s and 70s, while the money floating around was small change by modern standards, you had rich and poor clubs, playboys (George Best springs to mind alongside a whole heap of continental legends) and certain teams establishing both sporting and financial dominance.

 

It just makes whatever the small guys acheive that bit more special than, say, the Browns making the Superbowl. And the likes of ourselves, Portsmouth, Wigan and co. prove it can be done.

Ask any Leicester fan what they think of the past 10 years following our club, and most will mention, at least in passing, how much joy they've gotten from being the team to get the "big 4/5/6" sweating under their collar.

Agree with most of this but don't think we should in any way be bracketed with the likes of Portsmouth, Wigan & Co. A quick glance at the all-time Premier League table shows that. 

[OntarioFox]

27 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Agree with most of this but don't think we should in any way be bracketed with the likes of Portsmouth, Wigan & Co. A quick glance at the all-time Premier League table shows that. 

I don't see why not, neither of them were given a chance in hell to win what they did. The Prem Title was more of a shock given the need to do it all over the course of a full season, but if anyone with a serious bone in their body had said at the start of the season in question that either were going to win the FA Cup, they'd have been laughed out of the room.

And in Wigan's case, their final was against a Man City squad that had already had its oil billions injected into it. Then, to complete the story and the brutal nature of English football as compared to the US model, Wigan were relegated in the same season.

I'll confess, our own FA Cup triumph can't be viewed in the same light as the Prem title or the cup wins I mentioned, but I think it ties into the wider point I was making about footy in England, Europe and elsewhere feeding off that hierarchy OP was talking about to give an edge to it that American sport just doesn't, and never will, have. It was a special win for us at the end of lockdown, and for all the fans of the club that have wanted the FA Cup since the days when it was the most prestigious title in English footy. But for the neutral, it was another underdog, "good guy vs. bad guy" win because it was framed in the aftermath of the attempted ESL breakaway and the return of "real fans" to stadia. Footy needs a pantomime villain, and for the rest of us that day it was Chelsea, Chillwell and co.

We've definitely had a solid history as an "also ran" in the top flight, but let's be real, it's not until the past 3 or 4 years that our own stature has been elevated to anything above that and we've been taken even slightly seriously.

EDIT - how long have we got?

 

Edited 6 January 2022 by OntarioFox

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

On 05/01/2022 at 15:04, KingsX said:

English football developed with promotion and relegation -- mobility built in.  So how did a fairly rigid club hierarchy become its most popular feature?

 

The “working man’s game” revolves round a few clubs raised to the nobility in a bygone era.  Big Clubs which consume most of the oxygen as if by right.  And not only in the national media.  So many supporters of other clubs defend to the death the ongoing importance of “proper big clubs” … Arsenal …United … NUFC … based on the size of the manor (stadium) and the titles taken in ancient wars.

 

The Who’s Who list is not about who’s doing best now, is it?  It’s about antique silverware, the spoils of forgotten campaigns.

 

New wealth can buy in.  But push comes to shove, even the common man in the Midlands gets sniffy if your great-great-great wasn’t in the Peerage.  “At least Chelsea were minor nobility.  But Man City -- really?”  Show us the family silver or GTFO.

 

Who wants to see a well run. rising club like Brentford -- or Leicester?  The punters prefer United in the grasp of embezzlers who can’t field a watchable side on a billion pounds a year.  Or even Leeds under an Argentine nutcase.

 

If Arsenal were to drop, even if they stayed down 20 years, “when are AFC coming back up” would be 90% of the Championship discussion for the duration. 

 

You abolished hereditary Lords.  But you’d abolish the monarchy before you gave up this ingrained hierarchy in your national sport.  Why??

 

I think to some degree, this is ignoring history. For decades around the mid-20th century, baseball was dominated by the New York teams. If an also-ran team started well, they'd still have to sell their best players to the Yankees or Giants to pay their bills. This is one of the reasons so many teams moved: To get out of a crowded East Coast/Great Lakes Market so they wouldn't be a city's second team.

 

Once you had all but the major markets be single team -- and most major markets have a team (major league baseball didn't move west of the Mississipi until the Giants/Dodgers moved) then you got the other US peculiarities, such as a heavily localised media. There are no national papers, and people watch local TV stations for sports. The kind of rah-rahing of certain teams on a national level is difficult in those circumstances.

 

Although baseball isn't what it used to be, it's model of how top level team sports is run in the US was followed by everyone else, since American football and basketball were basically minor leagues until the 60s and the 6 team NHL was very, very regional.

Edited 6 January 2022 by MarriedaLeicesterGirl
Typo

[Finnaldo]

It’s all a bit bittersweet really isn’t it? With global expansion comes money and monopoly, but it makes it all the better when your club does succeed. 
 

When we won the league I saw grown men, including my stepdad, who are generally not expressive with their emotions in tears. They had watched football from the late 70s, when it was still an ‘open shop’, seen the ‘top teams’ begin to crystallise in the 80s, and with the dawn of the Premier League in the 90s realise that any hope of Leicester winning the big one pretty much fade for good, even if we had our own glories with O’Neill. I was born in the late 90s and by the time I was a conscious supporter I’d been programmed to accept our ‘place’ in the hierarchy. For fans of any age it was extra sweet because it was never supposed to happen. Even the FA Cup to some extent has been exclusive to the big boys in recent years and finally winning that had a glean to it.

 

There are things that could and should be done to make football more meritocratic and fair, but leagues like the Bundesliga show even with some ‘levellers’ put in place that it’s extremely hard to put the cat in the bag in regards to ‘Football Giants’ and their domestic grip. In the meantime it had our triumphs all the better. 

[when_you're_smiling]

It should also be pointed out that frequently through history the bigger clubs have made moves to ensure they get more money and therefore stay at the top.

 

Obviously the most recent was the Super League attempt which didn’t work but the formation of the Premier League was similarly about that and breaking away from the rules of the Football League so the top clubs could have the bigger slice of the pie. Measures that ended there and then included ditching the rule that 25 per cent of gate receipts for all games went to the away team. Those with the bigger stadiums, Man U for example, obviously wanted to get rid of that.