Are 12 American owners a serious threat to our game ?

WT86 said:
That's not really true. A fair number of NFL players make more than Haaland, for example, to play 16 "guaranteed" games. Same with MLB pitchers, who will play about 30 and rarely finish those games. Haaland plays 40-50 a year.
Click to expand...
Again, you’re missing the point!

The NFL is a small monopoly where owners actually move from one city to the next to improve their finances, and where there are usually only a small handful of players make bank. In a country the size of Oregon, we have 20 clubs vying for smaller $$, while in a country the size of the USA, owners literally handpick their location, in whatever state they choose based on potential fan base, TV market and tax subsidies to help build a new stadium. Throw in 330,000,000 potential viewers and a growing global audience, not to mention the increased viewership from gambling, and it’s grapes & watermelons!

And, I’m done. Enjoy.
 
BrianW said:
American influence over this country has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but in the absence of government controls that will require English people to stop selling out to foreign owners for a profit.
 
North west conference v South East Conference...playoffs in 10 years time... oh and no relegation for a select group of 'Legacy clubs'
 
WT86 said:
You have too many points to address. We can always cherry pick. Football does some things right that American sports do wrong, no question. Yes, relegation adds competition and should stay. But there's also another side that belies this nonsense about American sports being uncompetitive and American owners not investing in players, and you're not really addressing my point about competition. In every American sport more teams win and the players make more.

And to be clear I don't think football should be changed in any way or changed by foreign owners. As I said these people just want to make money and we shouldn't let the fact some of them are on our side blind us to that. I do think the government should address massive spending to make it more competitive. It's not good for the game.
Click to expand...
Football in no way should be changed by Yanks or to be like yank sports.
That's the end of the story
 
Yanks have been trying to manipulate football since the 80''s when they won the world cup in 94.

US TV channels asked FIFA if they could have a break midway through the first and second halfs as they said American audiences wouldn't be able to concentrate for 45 minutes as they were used to ad breaks every 5 minutes. Fortunately FIFA said no.

Nowadays FIFA follow the money so if US channels ask for that again in 2030 and grease FIFA's palm I'm sure they would think about it
 
You can't judge competition solely on who wins the trophies. City have won league titles on the last day of the season having to break records and go on insane runs. We beat an incredible Liverpool team who attained the third highest points total in the league. We've won one league title with virtually the last kick of the ball. That's competition!

Also since City's investment more teams have won the EPL for the first time than won it for the first time prior to our investment. This is despite City's dominance which is arguably due to Pep rather than us out spending our rivals.

Competition doesn't just exist for top 4 teams either. It is actually an incredibly short sighted way of looking at it when competition happens over 90 minutes of every game.
 
mrbelfry said:
You can't judge competition solely on who wins the trophies. City have won league titles on the last day of the season having to break records and go on insane runs. We beat an incredible Liverpool team who attained the third highest points total in the league. We've won one league title with virtually the last kick of the ball. That's competition!

Also since City's investment more teams have won the EPL for the first time than won it for the first time prior to our investment. This is despite City's dominance which is arguably due to Pep rather than us out spending our rivals.

Competition doesn't just exist for top 4 teams either. It is actually an incredibly short sighted way of looking at it when competition happens over 90 minutes of every game.
Click to expand...
I agree. But this same type of competition exists in American sports, in addition to the more broad-based competition for league titles. American leagues have never had relegation so that aspect of competition is lost, but calling them uncompetitive is silly. Objectively false.

I also agree that Pep and good ownership is the reason we've been as successful as we have under CFG, despite American-owned clubs usually outspending us or matching our spending (i.e. investing in their clubs).

Just trying to bring a bit of consistency to the argument here.
 
kippaxwarrior said:
Yanks have been trying to manipulate football since the 80''s when they won the world cup in 94.

US TV channels asked FIFA if they could have a break midway through the first and second halfs as they said American audiences wouldn't be able to concentrate for 45 minutes as they were used to ad breaks every 5 minutes. Fortunately FIFA said no.

Nowadays FIFA follow the money so if US channels ask for that again in 2030 and grease FIFA's palm I'm sure they would think about it
Click to expand...
They'd just pretend it was a water break
 
For what it’s worth, the next World Cup final is going to have an extended half time break for a half time show.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
While your “statistics” might be right, you’re talking about sports contracts in sports that play over 162 games in a season, often playing for 3 days in a row, with multi-billion dollar TV contracts, across multiple channels, and TV time outs every few mins to get the ad dollars flowing. They also have wall to wall TV talk programming about each game for a couple of hours before and after the game, AND this all takes place both regionally and nationally.

Ergo, you can’t compare US sports with UK sports on the metrics you describe.

However, how would you like NO TRANSFER FEES, which keep small clubs alive?

How about revenue sharing?

A draft, where the worst team get the best players next season, and only being able to protect “franchise players” every year?

A salary cap?

No relegation or promotion, just the same teams in the same league every year?

Or billionaire owners who decide all these rules, with a “League CEO” who is in their pocket to protect the billions that keep flowing TO THEM?

How about $130 (£100) tickets?

Oh and those tickets require a “seat licence” that “entitles” you to buy that ticket?

How about £10 for a 12oz beer?

How about £10 for a hot dog?

How about $250 for a parking spot for 9 games?

If we are going to laud a few things, let’s talk about the whole package, shall we?
Click to expand...
Not to take anything away or add to your post other than this but saw recently, can't confirm yet, that a pint of domestic at Los Angeles Dodgers games next season will be 30 USD!!
 
WT86 said:
That's not really true. A fair number of NFL players make more than Haaland, for example, to play 16 "guaranteed" games. Same with MLB pitchers, who will play about 30 and rarely finish those games. Haaland plays 40-50 a year.
Click to expand...
Very few, very few NFL contracts are "guaranteed." On the other hand, many if not most NBA contracts are guaranteed money.
 
better dead than red said:
Very few, very few NFL contracts are "guaranteed." On the other hand, many if not most NBA contracts are guaranteed money.
Click to expand...
I meant guaranteed in the sense that the player's commitment is at least 17 games if healthy and the team needs him, not guaranteed money.
 
Last edited:
kippaxwarrior said:
Yanks have been trying to manipulate football since the 80''s when they won the world cup in 94.

US TV channels asked FIFA if they could have a break midway through the first and second halfs as they said American audiences wouldn't be able to concentrate for 45 minutes as they were used to ad breaks every 5 minutes. Fortunately FIFA said no.

Nowadays FIFA follow the money so if US channels ask for that again in 2030 and grease FIFA's palm I'm sure they would think about it
Click to expand...
Arteta is already trialling the idea
 
better dead than red said:
Not to take anything away or add to your post other than this but saw recently, can't confirm yet, that a pint of domestic at Los Angeles Dodgers games next season will be 30 USD!!
Click to expand...
I checked…highest price for a beer at a Chicago sports arena is $18 for a 24oz beer ($15+ $3 tax!!).
 
kippaxwarrior said:
Yanks have been trying to manipulate football since the 80''s when they won the world cup in 94.

US TV channels asked FIFA if they could have a break midway through the first and second halfs as they said American audiences wouldn't be able to concentrate for 45 minutes as they were used to ad breaks every 5 minutes. Fortunately FIFA said no.

Nowadays FIFA follow the money so if US channels ask for that again in 2030 and grease FIFA's palm I'm sure they would think about it
Click to expand...
Wait for the “water breaks” in the US summer sun. They’ll be a nice 2-3 minute advertising break in each half and we will essentially be at 4 x 22.5 minute Quarters. Make the halftime 20 mins instead of 15, and you can add another 4 mins to the already 12 mins at HT, too!

Throw in the stadium advertising, much of it “green screen” and AI, plus a sponsorship panel on the screen at all times, plus the “slo-mo replay sponsored by Toyota” for every highlight, and you’re almost AMERIKA!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top