I think it's less about specific Americans (e.g. owners of several of the English teams involved) and more about the American style of running league competitions — e.g. without promotion/relegation.

In the "American system", in most major sports, individual players (and coaches, effectively) are relegated and promoted between the big league and smaller developmental leagues all the time. I don't love the American system but a failure to ensure that our top talent plays in the top leagues is not one of its deficiencies.

In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system.

As an American I would admit a preference for the promotion/relegation model but when I look at how a league like the English Premier League functions I don't find much to be jealous of. It's basically just a contest to see who has the most money... the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. Greed wins. And the fat paychecks for Premier league teams assure that the rich stay rich. It's hilarious to think of Man U being relegated because it could happen but c'mon, it's not.

The main difference is that Euro football leagues give the illusion of adhering to the sport's amateur roots. Theoretically your local town's team could play its way up to the Bundesliga or the EPL and win it all. However... that is basically an illusion. Occasionally a team like Cardiff City fights its way up to the Premier League, takes a beating, and sinks back down to the Championship League. They never really have a chance. Once per century you get a Leicester-style miracle, which is extremely cool but it's the exception that proves the rule.

Basically both systems are nearly equally ugly but the American one is more honest in most regards.

However I will agree that the proposed Super League is a terrible idea. The Champions League is special because it pits the best against the best every single year. That will be much less true for the Super League.

>the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year.

That's the thing I don't get about the opposition to this. Bayern has won the Bundesleague for a decade straight. Paris St Germaine is almost as dominant. Juventus the same in Serie A. La Liga flips between Real and Barca. Why not let these teams that have outclassed their competition go play in their own league? Let them chase the money and international market while the rest of the league can maintain their traditions.

Are you saying Arsenal is one of the top 12 teams in Europe?

The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.

538 has them at 12th:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...

It's not an illusion. It has happened. Leicester played in the third division in 2008-2009 and won the Premier League 7 years later.

Leipzig used to only play in a regional division 10 years ago and are now in the top of the Bundes Liga and reached the semi-finals of the champions league.

Although rare and improbable it does keep a dream alive for many fans. And dreams are part of the entertainment.

It can also go the other way around. Schalke 04 used to be a top 5 Bundes Liga team and are now relegated. This drama is exactly what makes the football pyramid charming.

I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time?

I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous of the pyramid model.

There have been amateur teams rising through the ranks to best national leagues.. One example in Denmark was Hobro, and they didn't even have money for a decent stadion to play their games on.

well schalke got relegated because of missmanagement, so yeah it was money oriented. and rb leipzig also got infused with money, but way way less than people think of and they kept their places without additional infusions, so... I guess they earned their placed, because rb leipzig actually put most of the money into infrastructure, which is probably what made the so successful.

Not Leicester, as far as I know.

Yes. Leicester's rise through the system was a direct result of money being pumped in by their owner, a foreign billionaire.

They were purchased 5 years prior to winning the Premier League and immediately upgraded their sponsorships, facilities, staff, and players.

Did money make them win the premier league? No, but it couldn't have happened without it and it had nothing to do with meritocracy or the local community.

Leicester barely survived relegation the year before winning the league. There wasn't an influx in cash between those two polar opposites.

After briefly being relegated to the third tier (for just a season, first time ever) for a season, they immediately bounced back up to the second tier in 2009-10 and then they were bought by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, a Thai travel and retail billionaire and started their rise to the top of the Premier League.

Leicester was bought by Thai billionaires a few years before winning the league.

That explains the arrival in the Premier League, but not winning it.

Yes, the economics of the sport are prett distorted even under the current system. It is unlikely that a team can accomplish promotion to a higher league year after year. However, poorer teams can level the financial playing field somewhat if they are able to sell star players to teams in a higher division.

It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.

Above all else, we can definitely agree that Leicester's miracle was one of the best sports stories ever. That was simply amazing.

But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?

Not really. Leicester in particular winning was an extreme event, but any small club winning in any league, much less extreme. Remember Chapicoense?

It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany). Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?

This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?

My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.

>How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension,

Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.

Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.

I understand your point better now - thanks.

It is absolutely not an illusion.. It happens quite often even.

The club owners pushing for this are equally responsible and fans blame them as well (in fact, some of them have resigned already). I haven't heard anyone blaming exclusively Americans (except for the linked article), if that's what you mean by "they".

I think it’s because the tournament style was supposed to be similar to American sports.

The Spanish club Real Madrid is mentioned:

> But Kroenke, Henry and the Glazers, believed to be the ringleaders of the Super League fiasco along with Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, badly miscalculated.

I think his point is that a lot of people are blaming the Americans for this when the 2 largest and greediest clubs in the world are "run" by fans. So it has nothing to do with the Americans, it's that European football has become so greedy at the top.

That's fair.

The American franchise model has a lot of advantages (or it would not be so popular) - steady income stream, revenue sharing, lower player acquisition costs.

But I also think the average European soccer fan thinks that the current status quo is bad, and introducing measures to increase the concentration of power and money is to be decried.

well one of the masterminds behind it is JPMorgan Chase, American.

It's being labelled as "American style" here because one of the goals of the now defacto-defunct Super League is that it would have very little actual sportsmanlike competition.

All of the founding members would be immune from ejection/relegation. 15/20 slots would be permanent.

There's no point to competition if winning and losing has no real consequences. Just like american sports, which are so freakishly boring because of that. Someone one a superbowl? Someone came in last out of 38 teams in baseball? What happens now? Nothing? Got it.

American-style sports is just playing exhibition matches over and over again, without end or consequence, year after year. There's no point to it.

Turns out, real sports fans don't like that.

I mean definitely late season games between bad teams are exhibition matches, and sometimes even outright tank battles. But I'm not sure how you can claim that winning the whole league doesn't mean anything? The NFL is already pretty clearly the collection of the 32 best football teams in the world. Presumably there is also a top end to promotion in European leagues, does winning the best of the best league mean nothing because you can't get promoted anymore? That's a pretty weird way of looking at sports

I've noticed that more and more people watch solely because they have a player from that game in their fantasy lineup, no other reason. Others have bet on a particular outcome in that game.

Say what you will about American puritanism, but it's shocking how brazenly the English game promotes gambling.

“What happens now? Nothing?”

Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season