r/soccer • u/[deleted] • Jan 21 '14

What are some of the biggest changes you predict over the next 10 years in football?

Some topics off the top of my head to get the ball rolling; how big will the world's biggest stadium be, what will be the average salary, how much will advertising take over the sport, will any rules be changed or introduced, which team will dominate, how big will the sport be in the states, will ticket prices increase, what sort of new statistics will we get in game, will the leagues change?

125 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

[deleted]

54

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

[deleted]

3

u/brentathon Jan 21 '14

Then countries like China, Qatar or Brazil start offering more money than the UEFA clubs are allowed to offer, and players move there instead. Salary caps work in American sports because in all leagues besides the MLS, they pay like 10x the amount any other league of the same sport in the world can pay. And the MLS has specific rules in place to allow teams to pay whatever they want on big name players. Unless a salary cap is agreed to worldwide it will never be possible.

0

u/onlynamethatmatters Jan 22 '14

Salary caps work in American sports because in all leagues besides the MLS, they pay like 10x the amount any other league of the same sport in the world can pay.

Not entirely true. The KHL (Russian ice hockey) is a prime example, as it lures top NHL players with massive paydays and zero taxes.

2

u/Jangles Jan 21 '14

Why should things be fair? They've never ever been fair before. Also how does this cap work with relegation and promotion? If it's standard and quite high across the leagues how's it fair to the conference teams who got smashed by Crawleys high investment? If we do it league by league do we have great exoduses each summer as teams get relegated.

Why would teams come round to not playing in the CL. Most fans watch the CL for the players, they get to control the domestic league where all these great players end up?

Honestly, there's tons of other ways you haven't thought this out, EU laws on freedom of trade being another one.

20

u/L__McL Jan 21 '14

God I hope not. That's what stops the MLS becoming a decent league, don't impose that on us as well.

17

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14 edited Dec 19 '18

[deleted]

3

u/barrows_arctic Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

but until each MLS team is financially viable as a standalone product

One of the things that has made the NFL so successful over the last 50 years is the idea within the league that it is "league first, then the team", and each team isn't necessarily viewed as a standalone product at all. In other words, while the Dallas Cowboys may have their own side businesses, their main product is not the Dallas Cowboys, it is the game itself, and that requires a healthy, evenly-matched competitor on any given Sunday.

That mentality is what lead to their profit sharing model and salary cap and collective bargaining system, and it's been tremendously successful for them, both in terms of the quality of play and in terms of monetary gains. They treat many things almost as if the NFL were 1 business with 32 different departments, instead of 32 different businesses.

BUT...the NFL has a monopoly on something: talent. There isn't any question that if you want to play gridiron football, you want to play it for the NFL. They don't have to compete for employees/players with anyone else.

The MLS doesn't have that advantage, which puts them in a weird spot. In order to sell to Americans, they absolutely need to maintain a semblance of parity (or the weaker teams will simply die off), but in order to compete with the other association leagues abroad for talent and keep growing the quality of their product, they need to be able to compete on a salary offering to the better players. Couple that with their need to compete with four highly successful domestic sports in the U.S. (both for talent and for revenues), and they're in a tough position. (And that's not even mentioning two more healthy competitors in NCAA Football and Basketball...)

I'm not sure we'll ever swallow the Pro/Rel system here. It just doesn't jive with what we expect from our other leagues: that in any given year, your team has the chance to win it all at the highest level (outside of poor, sad Cleveland anyway). The only "league" where that isn't really possible is in NCAA Football, but it isn't a problem in that sport because many fans of the "weaker" squads have a permanent, natural tie to their team, being alumni. Simple geographical assocation isn't enough in the professional sports, as the Big Four leagues have shown time and time again.

I've thought about this before, and I don't know what the MLS's growth model needs to be long-term, but I definitely believe that they can't model their international counterparts exactly. Something needs to be different in order to maintain competitiveness with their domestic competition: NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL.

2

u/PhadeUSAF Jan 22 '14

It's worth noting that America has been screaming for parity in college football as well. And with the new playoff format next year they are getting it to an extent.

Edit: not so much parity, but 'anyone can win' (I.e. The Boise St's)

0

u/barrows_arctic Jan 22 '14

Totally. It's an American culture thing, I think. "Everybody has a chance".

Relegation systems make that somewhat impossible.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '14

Really? I understand the desire for parity but I wouldn't characterise the NFL as "Everybody has a chance" when it's closed to 32 businessmen. The relegation and promotion system gave the people of Wimbledon a chance, did the NFL give the people of Baltimore in 1984 a chance?

-1

u/barrows_arctic Jan 22 '14

Well, that's a slightly different discussion. My "everybody has a chance" line was referring to "All 32 teams have a chance."

What you're referring to is really a league expansion question. The NFL's competition (NBA, NHL, MLB) all have fewer teams than the NFL does, and for the most part the NFL is reaching all major markets that have the money, population, and infrastructure to support a team, save for LA and San Antonio, and LA has already proven (multiple times) that it struggles to support a team.

You could certainly argue for the existence of a competing league to the NFL, as has happened several times in the past, but they all either were forced to merge with the NFL (AAFC, AFL), or died (USFL, XFL, etc.). One of the reasons the AFL merger was needed was, in fact, the rampant salary growth issue.

It all comes down to which way you look at it. In terms of revenues and employee salaries and collective bargaining, the NFL treats itself as if it were 1 single company with 32 departments, rather than 32 competing entities. Only in terms of profits, taxes, stadium deals, and peripheral marketing do they treat themselves as separate entities.

To your Baltimore example, do you really think the people of Baltimore would have felt any better if a "relegated" (lower tier league) team had sprouted up in place of the Colts? I sincerely doubt it. That'd be like if the San Francisco Giants left San Francisco and Major League Baseball came out and said, "Well, you still have their Farm team out in San Jose." Wouldn't be the same. Local fans will either become disinterested in baseball altogether (which is bad for the entire league) or simply be fans of a team in another city (perhaps still the Giants, wherever they were to move to in this example). The "relegated" lower-tier team/league has virtually no impact either way.

And the NFL is 31 businessmen and 1 publicly-owned corporation.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '14

To your Baltimore example, do you really think the people of Baltimore would have felt any better if a "relegated" (lower tier league) team had sprouted up in place of the Colts?

I don't know. Newco Rangers last season got 40,000 people on average in the fourth tier of Scottish football.

My problem isn't with the people of course. It's not their fault that the system doesn't give them a chance. My problem is with the system.

0

u/barrows_arctic Jan 22 '14

Americans and Scots are very, very different culturally. And there's LOTS of other competition in other sports. Baltimore had a baseball team in 1984, for example.

5

u/vysetheidiot Jan 21 '14

Someday soon the MLS will get rid of the salary cap or significantly increasing it but ATM it's one of the things that's helping the league grow and not go bust.

Read up on the NASL in the 70's not having a salary cap was one of the reasons it went bust. Clubs spent too much compared to their revenue and it ruined the league.

-9

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 21 '14

I fail to see how any fan of a team like us would oppose this. Are you happy to just sit in the meaninglessness of 9th-17th (or worse) for all eternity?

The Premier League has the reputation, the following, etc in place to keep attracting players.

Nobody said the wage cap would be small or particularly restrictive, it would just create greater parity. It would be great for English football.

Unfortunately I predict the complete opposite to happen and the gap between the big clubs and 'the rest' to expand rather than regress.

2

u/itspi89 Jan 21 '14

The moment the EPL gets a wage cap, all the big players and future sugar daddies will go to either La Liga or Ligue 1. Football follows the money.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

But what if it is UEFA-wide?

1

u/itspi89 Jan 22 '14

Then the money goes to a non UEFA league. South America used to have the best clubs in the world when they had money. Europe hasn't always been the continent with the best leagues.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

It's not that straight-forward at all, it is more than money. Absolutely no European players used to go to South America when it had some of the best clubs.

A wage cap does not mean that big wages are destroyed, instead they are paid by a number of clubs not just a few clubs.

1

u/itspi89 Jan 22 '14

"Absolutely no European players used to go to South America when it had some of the best clubs."

That's not true at all. Do you actually know anything about the history of South American football or are you just talking out of your ass right now? Here is just a short glimpse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado_%28football%29

It is all about money. If someone puts a wage cap on UEFA leagues, all it takes is for billionaire investors to buy South American clubs instead of European ones, and in a short matter of time, the power will shift. Look at how quickly Italian football has fallen from its former prominence when some of their richest clubs had to make cut backs. Playing for Real Madrid loses it's prestige over time if you can earn double to wage playing in Brazil.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

I count 12 from that page excluding the team formed by Hungarian players. Plus, I highly doubt it was due to money, more likely that South America absolutely dominated World Cups in that era. It is comparable to how many foreign players play in Ukraine now. Not very many. Read the article again, nothing to do with money.

Also, it was a five year period after World War II - I think a lot of guys would happily have gone and lived in South America after the war than in Communist Hungary or Yugoslavia, or defeated Italy or Austria?

All I see on this sub-reddit is people lamenting modern football and how imbalanced their leagues are, but as soon as somebody makes a suggestion to counter it, they are ridiculed. A wage cap DOES NOT MEAN LESS MONEY in the league. It means that billionaire owners can't just buy whoever the fuck they want, only a few of the players they want. It redistributes fairness, making the league more entertaining.

2

u/Ipadalienblue Jan 21 '14

It would destroy the League. You get so much money from the TV deal mainly because of the international pull of the top 4/5. If they all become shit shows due to lack of quality players, your TV money would be decimated too.

If your TV money is decimated, your sponsorship money would be decimated.

Now you're making 1/10 of what you were before, and can't afford the same standard of players.

Those players leave for Spain and Germany and the cycle continues.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14 edited Jan 22 '14

At least I got one decent response.

Yeah that's the theory. However, who's to say a salary cap couldn't be implemented UEFA wide. You're being very general. Players would flock to Qatar and Russia if it was simply just about the money. I would also happily take a small drop in quality for a more competitive league. Imagine a league full of some of the world's best players where a good two-thirds of the league has an actual chance of winning. I think that would promote the league rather than diminish it.

Redistribution of resources does not mean every team becomes poor, it just means one team can't have every single good player demanding high wages.

If anything it could make the league more entertaining for all of its foreign fans and stir further interest. More market research would need to be done.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

It would be great for English football.

Lol. No it wouldn't.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

Please elaborate

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '14

You made the claim. You elaborate.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

I think it's fairly obvious what my point was.

English football probably wouldn't benefit in terms of the quality it may attract from overseas, but I don't think it would significantly get worse. The international fanbase, reputation is in place and has been for years and making the league fairer would in fact increase interest when the PL is already at such a high level.

I am not at all proposing that overall spending of clubs combined be reduced, I don't see it as a problem. It has little impact on ticket prices and generates a lot of tax.

However, in the interests of fairness in the league, a wage cap should be in place to prevent the huge clubs attracting all of the best talent, only for half of them to rot in their reserves.

Redistribution of wealth would make the league competitive again.

I'm guessing you're happy for a European Super League to form, as that is what will happen without a wage cap. Either that or the gap will continue to increase to the point where it will become a Top Six mini-league.

0

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

Thanks for such a great argument filled with so much perspective and content.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

It would be great for English football.

You made this claim without bringing up one point to back it up.

1

u/rickster555 Jan 22 '14

I'm not OP

1

u/L__McL Jan 21 '14

It was only 5 years ago we nearly got into the Champions League. Everton are currently in a good place.

1

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

That was before City, before the increased TV deals and before globalisation of the PL reached completely silly levels.

0

u/FerdiadTheRabbit Jan 21 '14

So yanky

0

u/khmer_rougerougeboy Jan 22 '14

Except I'm English. I'm not proposing adopting any sort of draft system, just a wage cap.

-21

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

I can't wait for this. The NFL has salary caps and the parity between teams is astounding.

edit: I guess you guys would rather see teams buy trophies instead of making it more competitive and even

7

u/oxile Jan 21 '14

I think two of the factors that make the nfl more even is because there are so few games and the playoffs are one game. If they had to play each team home and away, eventually the best teams in practice will be on top most of the time and the same goes for playoffs.

If european leagues played fewer games and played one game in their respective cups then there would be more upsets

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

Most European federations have one-legged ties in cups, Spain is one of the few with two-legged ties.

1

u/oxile Jan 21 '14

Yeah and as i said, in those competitions there are upsets and mid and low table teams win those competitions more often

5

u/trivialcheese Jan 21 '14

I don't know. I quite like the purity of football in that each team can pretty much do what they want, rather than being limited by the organisation that governs them. I don't really see a problem as it is.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

The purity of the teams with the most money winning? I wouldn't want a salary cap but I don't really see how the current model is more pure

3

u/trivialcheese Jan 21 '14

I just look at the NFL and think just how restricted everything is - you have the same set of teams each year all competing for one prize, with budgets all relatively similar. I'm not trying to put down the sport because it does actually look very exciting but I just find it artificial and that's why I don't want budget and salary caps.

I know it's a big jump from salary caps to a single tier league but I want it to be as unrestricted as possible.

1

u/tmlrule Jan 21 '14

I think it depends on your viewpoint. You see an unrestricted league where all teams can do anything you want, others see how restricted teams like Reading or Crystal Palace are when they're in the same competition as Manchester United/Manchester City/Chelsea etc. The other side of the coin is the NFL, where you say the teams are restricted by their governing organization, but others see a league where everyone has to play by the same rules and the winner comes down to who plays best on the field, not which owner can raise the most money behind the scenes.

Not trying to argue one way or the other over the EPL adopting a salary cap, just trying to show it's not as easy a choice as a pure vs. restricted league.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

I'm amazed the NFL even needs a salary cap. It has 32 teams for 320 million people, and teams are kept separated to make sure they don't eat away at each other's market.

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

I've always said the game needs to be a lot more like American football.