The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.

Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.

In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.

Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.

This has always confused me: what's the connection between the community and the club? How does Man City 'represent' Manchester?

So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).

The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.

I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.

I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

Geography only plays a small part of this.

And United’s first home wasn’t in Trafford.

Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.

I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?

Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.

Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...

I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.

But that’s not how football works. Status and brand shouldn’t matter, you get money based on your results.

Most of these clubs are pretty much assured of qualification for Europe anyway, but at least they earn it by finishing in the top few places in their national league.

They already have the most money, they want to get rid of the risk that they might not always do so.

The NFL might distribute money evenly, but only among the select, limited number of teams that the NFL allows to be a part of the NFL brand.

And the way football related is defined is fairly narrow, so some obvious revenue sources (suite upgrades, parking, etc) do not fall under football related and therefore goes to the owners.

Further, the vast majority of wealth the owners make is through the rapidly increasing value of their teams.

At the end of the day the income is peanuts compared to the wealth and asset value appreciation that is generated by the teams.

I think you're looking at this a bit too narrowly - every expense involved in running an NFL team comes out of that 52% that the owners "get", so none of the owners are actually seeing all 52% of that money.

Please note - I'm simply responding to the specifics here - I'm not saying that owners are hard done by, in fact I believe the split should be more weighted to the players (and include roster expansion and more pay/stability for practice squad players).

I'm not sure a super league isn't a good idea. At the moment the top six or so teams in the Premiership are more or less unbeatable by those beneath them. I'd like to see more games where they play other great teams in Europe, and fewer of them beating Middlesbrough or whatever. (Or Norwich, my local team that just got promoted.)

At the moment there is no penalty for coming last in the AFL or NFL :-) oh and next year you have first pick of the best new players

The NFL, MLB, and the NBA are all higher revenue sports than the EPL. Even the NHL brings in more revenue than every other sports league than the big 3 North American sports + EPL- 30% more than La Liga or Bundesliga. So if revenues for sports without relegation are so much greater than the revenues for sports with relegation, why would it improve the sport?

In terms of money, which is a rough but reasonable proxy for fan interest, limited entry leagues seem to make more money.

It's not deliberate arrogance, it just comes from the same core belief that thinks the USA is the best in everything {insert newsroom speech}