I think that's why the golden era of Man Utd (last 15ish years with Fergie at the helm) wasn't that good for American fans. Yea, it brought in some (me)... but after a while, I found myself not caring about seeing a game if it wasn't against Chelsea or Liverpool. Even then... After 2 years of that... whoopie... Man Utd got another win against, oh look an ant is struggling to carry a cookie crumb.

That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt. The cringe is far more damaging than the love taps they whine about. Rugby and hockey have that shit figured out, why cant they?

> Rugby and hockey have that shit figured out, why cant they?

Something else they could learn from rugby, respect for the officials. The number of times you see football players chasing after or arguing with the referee is just embarrassing. Rugby officials don't stand for it, neither should football officials.

Absolutely. What's the joke regarding the two sports? Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans while rugby is a hooligan's sport played by gentlemen. Something like that. Either way, the level of respect players have for one another and refs is awesome since it really is a violent/dangerous game. There are a few exceptions, but it's fun when refs say, "This isnt soccer, you cant get away with that here." Football/soccer players are just rich brats. FIFA and the various leagues encourage it too.

Football is a sport played by Gentlemen watched by hooligans. Rugby is a sport played hooligans, watched by Gentlemen.

Although the rugby hooligans are very respectful to the referee. Mic-up the referee in football.

As someone who grew up watching rugby and only got into football as an adult, I couldn't believe the amount of disrespect players show to officials. I think I spent the first two years constantly saying "in rugby this guy would have been sent off by now" on repeat...

I only discovered rugby a few years ago. I was completely floored. Players apologizing? Players being the first ones to admit making a mistake? Players making sure opposing hurt players are okay? What in the fuck am I watching? Who made it okay for mature, respectable adults to play a televised sport? Why haven't they been fired yet? Dont they know what planet this is?

When the players are respectful that's when you know it's a combat sport.

Same, as an American sports fan. Touching an official or yelling at them in any sort of aggressive manner is almost always an automatic foul or penalty, and possibly grounds for ejection.

My only thought as somebody who never played soccer is that the decisions a soccer referee makes are much more consequential, and oftentimes very subjective. A single call in soccer can change a game in a way that doesn't happen in any other sport.

I don't think it is true that referee calls in soccer are more consequential than in e.g. rugby. In fact I would argue that in rugby a referee could make very subtle calls (that would likely not be picked up by many fans even) that can very substantially change a game, e.g. just how he referees the breakdown or scrums. Let's not even talk about giving or not giving a try etc..

Rugby Union is a shining example of sport done right. Everyone other sport would do well to take a long hard look at their processes. I used to love ice hockey and then football (soccer) but now the only sport that I can watch without getting a bad taste in my mouth is Rugby. Six Nations is my favourite time of year.

May be it is just me, but my memory of old football in the 90 /00s wasn't like that at all. No Match was too easy, No Team were unbeatable.

Despite the old Analog TV, No 4K, No HDR, No 60fps, No Super Complex Codec, but the intensity was there. Something was transmitted from the field to audience in front of the tele. You can feel Roy Keane is about to punch somebody in the face if they dont make one more step or dont chase after the ball. And that is how time and time again Man Utd make their comebacks.

If we ignore the big teams like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, I remember Leads had the Australian pair Mark Viduka and Harry Kwell, Alan Shearer in Newcastle, Paolo Di Canio in West Ham, even Bolton Wanderer has Jay-Jay Okocha. Every team has a fighting Chance. And football was so much more fun back then.

I think somewhere along the line Football becomes very commercially focused. And big money flowing in means there are far less Middle Class Team. ( Sounds like our society in general ). And with less competition, along with players just dont seems to give a fuck about anything other than their pay cheque. The game becomes less interesting.

I miss the old days where everything was transmitted from 1 camera in the nosebleed section. Switching the camera all the time is fatiguing.

With how much increase in bandwidth we have now days, they should just broadcast all of their different camera views. Sports bars would be much more interesting if you could look at different screens for different views.

If you're relatively new to football, you may not remember what we used to call the "cloggers" in the UK, players who were specifically tasked with going around and injuring opposing team members with violent tackles. (Although if you're a Man U fan you may remember someone called Roy Keane...?) The pendulum has probably swung too far in the opposite direction but, for example, Maradona had his ankle broken in a famously bad tackle by Goikoetxea, a player notorious for doing this, and he wasn't banned for many matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wqi3z-3VXo (warning - includes slow-motion footage of the ankle break near the beginning). Given a choice between these things, I'll take the diving, and hope for more retrospective punishments for diving in the future.

I started caring in 04 I think. There was a huge soccer/football push at the time in the states. A dedicated soccer channel even sprang up. I think I remember the whole excessive injury thing brought up a few times, but that's over 15 years ago. I think it was the season after the 06 cup, someone did a really blatant dive. I could swear Ronaldo, but he's dived a lot, so not sure. Anyways, it was during a huge string of dives in the league and I just thought to hell with the sport.

I get it, there's a want to avoid injuries. I respect that. Rewarding stupidity and blatant cheating was beyond a pendulum swing. Retro punishments isnt enough. It has to be consistent red card, ejected from the game, multi game ban if you're going to fix the image of the sport. Also, cant remember what it's called, but when they intentionally kick a ball into an opposing player so it bounces off them, then out of bounds so they can get a throw in. Yea, that I hate too. I watched a 70s MU vs Liverpool game, none of that shit was going on. Just a pure game. I think that was when I was becoming disillusioned with the sport, because I saw how it used to be played... like an actual fucking sport.

Maybe The Code from hockey needs to leak into soccer/football. That's a better way to fix diving and injuring strikers. Put the beat down on that player, continue the game. Itll sort itself out eventually. Until then, I'll choose a sport that has itself sorted out.

>They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time

I always find these complaints strange coming from American fans. "Playing for time" is hugely important and mainstream strategy in the NFL. Coaches will be criticized if they don't run the ball enough when they have the lead in the 4th quarter. Meanwhile flopping is hugely common in the NBA. You can just search Youtube for "LeBron flops"[1] for plenty of evidence of the exact same behavior that is always condemned in soccer.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LeBron+flops

I think in the USA playing for time is considered acceptable and a good strategy so long as it isn't overdone. It's different in the NFL though, where there is an inbuilt limit to how much you can really delay. But anyway, you're right -- I don't think it's generally considered bad, at least not anytime I've ever watched sports with friends and colleagues.

Diving though; that's universally considered to be unquestionably lame. It's never cool.

Yes, there are built-in limits to playing for time in both American football (play clock) and basketball (shot clock). Anything within those limits is fair game.

To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time. What's interesting, college games are a bit more faster paced, mostly because those kids have something to prove so they can get into the NFL draft. Either way, I dont like American football without friends, snacks and booze. Baseball on TV, I feel the same, in it for the party. Theyre slow sports in reality. Though, in person, at the stadium, baseball is awesome.

I dont watch basketball at all.

>college games are a bit more faster paced, mostly because those kids have something to prove so they can get into the NFL draft.

That isn't the reasoning at all. The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, so in a very real sense the players in the NFL are playing more to stay in the NFL than players in college are playing to get into the NFL. Also some of the highest paced teams in college are the teams full of players with no hope of playing in the NFL.

The reason some college teams play faster than the NFL (and it isn't all teams) is because there is a wider talent distribution in college. It is possible to win games there by being faster and playing faster than your opponent. Talent is more evenly distributed in the NFL. You can just out athleticism your opponent.

Another factor is that both players and coaches spend more time strategizing in the NFL. It is harder to just run the same scheme every game without it being eventually exposed.

> I dont watch basketball at all.

Strangely enough, this sport has had a similar problem with playing for time that afflicts football/soccer. It used to be a horrible problem that almost destroyed the sport until the invention of the shot clock. I think it may have gone a bit too far in the other direction, to the point where you can ignore everything but the last five minutes of most games, but football/soccer could really use something like a shot clock to force offensive action.

>To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time.

And time for advertisements.

Let us be honest about this for once. There are no USA sports. Just ads that happen to have a sport segment.

The biggest sporting event in the US sport calendar year is known - not for the crunching tackles, not for the high flying antics, not for the pin in the needle plays...no sir - it is known for ads. Superbowl ads are bigger than the sport. When I was younger I though Superbowl meant ad marathons.

> That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt.

This is the only football I know. That's why I was never interested in watching football as a kid and I'm still not today as an adult. I am an absolute sport enthusiast and play everything from football to basketball, skateboarding and what not but I can't watch a bunch of drama queens having a cry when the wind blew their hair the wrong direction or someone got slightly touched by another player. The sport seriously needs more Zidanes who know how to head butt if someone is making a scene.

Football (soccer) is by far the best game for just playing in my opinion. Two jumpers on the ground for goalposts and an open space is all you really need. It is easy to learn, fun to play, and very cheap.

It is just that the professional game is pathetic, and I don't watch it for that reason.

In a way, the drama is a genuine part of the sport. Many matches became memorable just due to these theatrics.

I grew up watching soccer and then stopped cold turkey until last world cup. I just couldnt stand watching this crap anymore because of all the diving and time wasting etc.

I started watching NFL this past season and i found a lot more interesting than today’s soccer. Great display of athleticism, discipline to follow plays, and the dance moves!

> That and diving.

There is something even more painful to watch than soccer simulations: sports that encourage killing the watch like football, baseball and basketball.

At least in diving, a little bit of acting talent is involved.

There's no watch to kill in baseball. You have to get the other team out a set number of times.

Correct, but the use of stoppage is a little bit similar to the use of timeouts in other sports, in my humble opinion.

Another dishonorable gameplay of baseball that makes me hate it (my apologies for not remembering how this is called): this move batters often do to just amortize the ball so the field players can snag an extra base!

What makes bunting dishonorable? If anything it's the opposite, the player sacrifices themselves to move a teammate.

> What makes bunting dishonorable?

Well, it is obviously subjective, but bunting can be used to prevent no-hitter which is why I personally see it as disgraceful.

Breaking up a no-hitter with a bunt requires bunting for a base hit, which is orders of magnitude more challenging than a sac bunt. It's not as rare as pitching a no-hitter, but it's rare enough to be notable when it happens. You have to place the bunt in one of only a handful of defensive dead zones and it requires elite base running speed.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"? I think baseball does have a pacing problem, but it's really cultural more than anything else: games are about 1.5x as long today as they were 50 years ago, even though in terms of what happens (number of pitches, batters, etc.) they're basically the same. Unfortunately the main way to combat this, the "pitch clock" rule, is unenforced. I can't imagine why.

I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?

> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"? When players or coaches call timeouts (I don't know if this is the official name), even tho there is no clock to interrupt, to interrupt the flow of the game at key moments.

> I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?

It took me some time to find out, but this is what I was refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunt_(baseball).

Now truth be told, one thing that makes me love baseball is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel#At_the_plate.

The Eddie Gaedel stunt was perpetrated by Bill Veeck [1], who came up with so many baseball stunts throughout his life and had many rules changed in reaction to them. Apropos to this discussion is that he is also the last person to buy a major sports team in the US without being massively wealthy.

A few days after that Eddie Gaedel stunt, Veeck did another one where the fans got to decide everything that the team did during the game, by holding up cards to vote.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck

Basketball has the opposite problem: clock-stopping in close games through intentional fouls.

The shot-clock in basketball was introduced to prevent clock killing, and promote scoring.

Basketbal

The thing is there's excitement at both ends of the table in the PL and its continental counterparts. It's not just who wins the league, there's relegation as well, which is its own brutal drama.

Also I think people overestimate how much winning actually means. People support clubs whose heights were reached decades ago, not because they might miraculously win this year, but because the club is part of their life and the club's story is part of their story. It's like a soap opera, greatness comes and goes, but you keep watching. Club heroes are often not particularly good in a wider context, they're often of journeyman skill.

So in that sense there's something for everyone, even if the trophies are tied up in the top few clubs.

I do think some sort of more even distribution would make sense, though I think there are probably competition laws that would prevent a salary cap.

> If you are a Jaguars fan and your team is picking #1 in the draft next week after getting one win last season, you can realistically hope that you might be supporting a good team in a couple of years.

This creates really weird incentives. It was between them and the Jets, and people were saying the Jets were stupid for winning a game and losing Trevor Lawrence.

It's also its own can of worms, having unpaid athletes who are still essentially professionals rather than students, at universities who run a huge legally protected racket.

Why not do like in Europe and have clubs with teams that have age groups, genders, and second and third teams for all those categories? What's the idea in a bunch of professionals who come and go as dictated by money, but with the name of a specific place on their jerseys? In what sense are you truly representing a place if there's no community below the professionals?

I think most of that comes from the fact that American sports have playoff systems to determine eventual champions (and the uncertainty that entails) whereas leagues favor consistent performers (strongly correlated with the money a club can invest). If you see playoff-like national tournaments in European soccer (which happen in parallel with the leagues) those too tend to have a wider spread of winners.

At least in England, clubs are an integral part of local culture (see the emotions involved in a derby!), and the thought of “moving” a club to a different location would be heresy. I presume that it’s very similar in many other European countries too.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the European Super League proposal which incorporated none of that.

And I doubt you'd get those kinds of rules and still have pro/rel. Ultimately investors don't want that fair of a playing field. And pro/rel in Europe is brilliant if you get past the very top of the table. If all you care about is "who wins the league/cup" every year it may become boring, but the best games in the UK can be the lower league playoffs to see who goes up. There's a constant refreshment of new teams getting promoted which changes the league every year.

> This makes the sport more interesting to watch as a fan - it's not the same few contenders year in year out.

I don't understand - isn't this backwards? It is the same few contenders in the NFL every year isn't it? But it isn't in the English football leagues where teams relegate and promote every year.

When did a team last join the NFL? 2002? And before then? 1996? I think beyond that you're possibly talking about the 70s?

I think you are using the generic definition of "contenders" and not the way it is traditionally used in a sports context (at least in the US). "Contending" doesn't mean merely participating in a league. It means having a realistic shot at winning the title. The specific teams that are in the league don't change much in the NFL anymore, but the teams that are near the top of the league are much more fluid in the NFL than in the EPL and other European leagues.

> It means having a realistic shot at winning the title

"If Leicester City win the premier league I'll do MOTD in my undies"

Leicester City is the exception that proves the rule. They were the first first time winner since the 70s. Besides that year, there are basically 4 teams (although I guess it is now 5 if Liverpool can actually win) that have just traded the title back and forth for the last 25 years. Meanwhile there has only been one repeat Super Bowl winner in the last decade with 8 teams winning over the last 10 year span.

As someone above pointed out a much better comparison to the superbowl would be the winner of the championsleague as the structure is more alike. There have been 11 teams winning in the last 25 years. Still less variation than NFL, but then in soccer there is much more drama throughout the season, while in NFL it's all about the playoffs.

Sounds like it depends on your viewpoint. Neither are fair and fully open.

Premier League and La Liga are dominated (to different extents) by the top teams, but are otherwise open for any team to reach and win.

NFL is closed to new entrants, but apparently more fair and competitive for all members for that closed group.

And yet New England has been in half of the last 10 years superbowls. Is it really as effective as you say? Aren't there like a dozen teams that haven't won in 30 years? Does that feel different than a smaller market Premier League fan?

I don't think I disagree with your basic point that feedback is important, but I don't think the NFL has it well solved either.

There are 16, so 50% have won in the last 30 years, which is actually a very good distribution. And that includes a lot of small market teams (11 by my non quantitative snap judgment)

s/New England/Tom Brady/

ok, so map that to Messi and FC Barcelona :)

That’s an argument for financial regulation, which we have in part in the U.K., not ruining sport by turning it into a theme park.

> If you support one of those top five or six clubs - good for you. If you don't, then you don't have a realistic chance of seeing a league win in your lifetime.

And yet right now two of the top 6 teams are not the "6 big clubs" - Leicester and West Ham.

Liverpool, who walked the season last year, are doing about as well as Everton. Man City, who are currently top, lost just 2 weeks ago against Leeds - at home. I'm sure that Leeds fans were delighted by that performance, 10 years ago they were languishing in the 3rd tier. I know for a fact the football nerds in my family were delighted to see Wolves doing so well recently.

A football team is for life, not just for Christmas. You don't choose your team, it's something built in, whether you like football (or sport) or not.

My Dad, like his dad before him, and his dad before him, supported Wolves from a wee nipper in the 50s when they were winning the league (53-54 - snatching it from rival WBA, being claimed "Champions of the World" apparently for defeating Hungary, and being one of the first British teams in the champions league) through to his deathbed last month. Clearly in the 50s Wolves were one of the "big 6".

In the 60s they were doing great again, starting off with FA Cup wins and 2nd/3rd places in the league but by the mid 60s they were relegated. They bounced around in the 60s and 70s between first and second tiers, but by the mid 80s they were down in the 4th tier. Local boy Steve Bull came, and being far better than Andy Gray, catapulted Wolves back up the leagues. I remember them beating the undefeatable Man U about that time. With a "super league" that type of victory doesn't come.

In 2013 they were back in tier 3. The 2017/18 season they did outstandingly in Tier 2, greatest season for decades (or so I'm informed), and the following season in the top tier was blistering too - finishing 7th, getting into Europe, reaching the FA Cup Semi finals. What an exciting 5 years.

It's not just Wolves of course. Leicester were in the 3rd tier in 2008. By 2016 they'd won the Premier league. That type of rise, in 8 years, is the stuff dreams are made of.

Watford had a cracking Semi Final game against Wolves in 2019, coming from 2-0 down to win in extra time. Wolves had got rid of "big" teams like Man U on the way up, and the FA Cup is where anything can happen.

They lost 6-0. Man City were unstoppable. not bad for a team that were in the 3rd tier as recently as 1998

Crawley Town beat Leeds earlier this year in the FA Cup. In 2013 it was Wigan knocking out Man City. In 2015 3rd tier Bradford knocked out Chelsea. Third tier Oldham beat Liverpool in 2013, and of course non-league Lincoln beat Premier league Burnley in 2013, reaching the FA Cup quarter finals.

English Football has never been about a battle between a few big teams. When the century-old Wimbledon were Americaned, bought and moved 60 miles to Milton Keynes, the fans got behind the replacement. The replacements started off in the 9th tier, and are currently fighting the previous Wimbledon (now Milton Keynes) in the 3rd tier.

>Wimbledon in the 3rd tier. "Only took nine years" to get back in to the league. Getting promotion on ** merit. Not buying a place.

Then eventually beating the Franchise and watching them get relegated. Sweet sweet justice.

Now with a fans funded new stadium.

Football is beautiful. Even on a wet cold night in stoke.

> Even on a wet cold night in stoke.

Are there any others?

Stoke and Port Vale are unlikely to be winning the premier any time soon, but that's not the point - Stoke thrashed Liverpool 6-1 in 2015, and that's Football. I'm no fan, and If I were I'd support wolves, but I can appreciate that win will have made Stoke fans delighted.

From reading this hn discussion (the only place I've seen ESL defended), it seems that fans of the American style system (which yougov put as less than 10%) think that winning at the end of the season is all that matters.

Your in depth knowledge of the stats for years gone by is truly impressive. These events, this is why we love the beautiful game

In fact I don't particularly like football - being brought up in a house with a wolves loving grandfather, father and brother sort of turned me against it. I watch an average of about 1 game on TV every 12-18 months.

But I appreciate for many people, football isn't a matter of life and death - it's far more important. For tens of millions in the UK, it's not about the winning, or the losing, it's about the battle.

Dunno about primier league but F1 not only put caps but also made some inverse feedback rules.

For example now the rules are that your usage of wind tunnels is bigger the closest you are to the last place, while the first place in the ranking doesn't matter how much money they are willing to spend with wind tunnels, they are heavily capped.

We won't see the broader impact of these rules until the 2022 season of course when teams need to fully redesign their cars.

I'm really interested in seeing how much this experiment mixes up the race results in 2022 given Mercedes has won the last 7(I think) years in a row.

Well, that's a knockout vs. league outcome, right? The FA Cup has 5 winners in the last 10 cups.

Leicester.

Yes, a team bought by a foreign billionaire willing to spend money suddenly got good, so good they ended up winning it all. Great for fans of Leicester, but what about all the fans of, say, Bolton? That's a team where the ownership has fallen apart and the team is insolvent and is now down in the 4th tier. Sucks to be them.

What if I told you there was a magical way to make sure that all teams competing were on an equal financial footing?

> Great for fans of Leicester, but what about all the fans of, say, Bolton?

I think everyone in the country rejoiced when Leicester won. Everyone loves an underdog story.

> and is now down in the 4th tier

Wolves were in the 4th tier, now they battle to get into europe. These things are cyclical over the generations. Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down, but you're always there.

Out of interest, are you British or American?

You might even say Bolton has been wandering for a while