robbieh said:Just as in the real economy the free market does not exist. If it did, gas and electricity prices would be lower due to competition. In fact the banks on failing did not go to the wall, they were bailed out by the tax payer. This is in effect a monopoly of political and economic power. The big players make the rules.
So it is in football. Basically it is protectionism. While the City response to this cartel has been criticized it is the only way to break in.
However in the long run something completely different is required that allows the likes of Derby, Forest or these days Swansea to win the league.
Quite how that can come about in our super capitalist world is a bit difficult to envisage.
While there are many things wrong with US sport, they do have more competition, despite being arguably more 'super-capitalist' than Europe. Just look at how many different winners of the Super Bowl there have been in the last 30 years, and it's not as if US sportsmen are underpaid.
I suspect the fact that their sports are very insular makes it easier to have strong financial rules, as the Champions League and the many different sized (financially) European leagues would make it difficult to create a similar environment here - but it at least shows that there are other ways.
The vast majority of the teams in European top divisions have virtually no chance of winning a title, or reaching the Champions League - It's a shame they've never combined their power to force through some much more dramatic changes.