While you all may question American sports - they seem to have the right idea in some areas...

Listening to an interview this morning with Bud Selig, the Commisioner of Major League Baseball. When he became Commissioner 15 years ago, he introduced the very contreversial idea of Revenue sharing - the profitable teams like the Yankees and Cubs are "taxed" and the money is spread around the other teams. Last year, baseball had one of the most open years in terms of competition. Most teams invest in their "farm" or youth system to get young players to the major league.

In American football they have the salary cap (which baseball doesn't have) so no team may go out and get all the best players by paying the highest wages - this past season was again very open with no clear favorites.

The more I watch the Premiership, the more sad I get. When it first began, you had a number of clubs challenging for the title (Leeds Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, etc) now it is just 2 teams realistically and an ongoing battle to pay greedy players higher wages - just look at Man U and Ronaldo.

Something needs to be done with the Premiership as it is affecting the whole sport. Fans resent the high paid players and many fans simply cannot afford to go anymore. Will anyone care in 10 years time?

 

They have revenue sharing in the NFL for merchandise sales.

It is quite ironic how the bastion of capitalism has an almost socialist approach when it comes to sport.

The draft and trade systems are good as well.

 

I think you are quite right

..insomuch as English football is slowly poisoning itself.</p>

Unfortunately it will be the smaller, family orientated clubs that will go to the wall. The process is starting now. A number have come close and come back, but the way things are shaping up it's a terminal illness strangled by an inability to compete financially, and falling gates due to high prices andperformances that don't match spectator expectations.</p>

I reckon in 20 years, the big business clubs will have joined a far off super league where most revenue will come from pay per view for worldwide customers, and the rest of footy as we know it will be reduced to nowt.</p>

 

RE: a lot of people hate the draft system.

its like rewarding crapness. Its getting to the stage where a poor team will want to lose their last few games to gaurantee the number one draft pick.

Why should you reward that?

 

I think all TV money (including euro competitions) should be shared down the leagues

40% to Premier
30% to Championship
20% to CC1
10% to CC2

All clubs to be given equal shares.

Ticket and merchandise income to be kept by individual club.

 

Ady Boothroyd said similar last week but I couldn't find a link online for it.

He said that TV money should be "taxed" and this used to fund the academies throughout the league

 

Completely agree, and to be fair I haven't watched a full premier league game for a long time. It's like a pack of cards, eventually it will all crumble.

 

In fact I'd go further than academies, I'd use it to fund school sports (not just football either).

The more kids we have playing sport then the larger the pool of talent we have in which to look for our elite sportsmen, not to mention the knock on effect that playing sport has to kids - improved health, teamwork, sense of achievement, quick thinking, tactics, the list goes on.

How much sport do kids play at school, almost non I would guess - each infant and junior school should have a dedicated sports teacher and at secondary school there should be at least 3 hours sports per week with plenty of provision for after hours clubs and training.

 

Note the significant difference in the USA though. 1 league with about 30 teams (depending on sport) in a country muchg bigger than here yet we have 4 leagues with a total of 92 teams.

it would only work here if we had a close shop, no promotion relegation etc.

How would you all feel about a S Yorkshire franchise, playing at hillsbourgh perhaps

 

But underneath that they have a very strong, well funded and very well supported college system. Many of the college football teams get bigger crowds than the NFL teams.

 

College Sports

The college system is amazing and frustrating

The big college games get 100,000+ attending. In many ways college sports are more popular than pro sports. The college coaches get paid similar wages to the pros (University of Southern Cal. is a suuccessful school and the coach gets 3-5m per year). The athletes are extremely well prepared for professional sports and in the majority of sports, players MUST go there before the pros. The draft ensures that all teams get great players - for example in Football the New Orleans Sainst were the 2nd worst team last year and then picked up one of the best players (Reggie Bush) and turned it around this year.

On the downside, a lot of scholarships are given to athletes who are not academically college level. There is a lot of pressure to get into colleges which has led to a problem with the use of steriods in high schools.

I just think that there is greater parity in sports over here. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot wrong in American sports (poor drug testing, overlong seasons, overpaid players) but there is a constant move to keep things better for the fans. The Premier League seems to be an exclusive club doing whatever they can to make it better for them - add to that the European clubs.

 

Do you think that the Colts team is better than any of the 49er teams of Montana/Steve Young?

&quot;Open&quot; competition is all well and good , but it breeds mediocrity. </p>

Has the NFL actually improved since the salary cap?</p>

Teams can work really hard to get a squad together , onl to find that if they start winning then they have to break it up , where is the fairness in that?</p>

Its not the top players getting paid a lot of money thats the problem , its the mediocre ones underneath who are getting paid fortunes that take money out of the game.</p>

I try and keep up with American Sports , and for me the expansion of the leagues to include more teams has diluted the product.</p>

The quality players are spread more thinly and lots more average players who wouldnt be in the League 10-15 years ago are now in it earning 1-2 Million a season.</p>

I am guessing that there are quite a few fans in America who cant afford to go to games also especially in the NFL.</p>

 

RE: Do you think that the Colts team is better than any of the 49er teams of Montana/Steve Young?

You are probably right. Then again was that Liverpool side that won the European Cup a couple of years ago anywhere near the Liverpool teams of the late 1970's/early 80's?!

Regarding many fans not being able to go to games, I suspect that is very true. Last NFL game I went to it was a $70 ticket and that was one of the cheaper ones, as an event whilst on holiday I don't mind paying that but would I be able to every other week? Same with ice hockey, a reasonable seat for NHL costs $45, a bit more affordable but not if you are going regularly, explains why when I went to see an IHL game (the minor leagues) in the US that it was packed out in a 15,000 capacity arena. 2 NHL games and a NBA game for me next month. Baseball is much more affordable, can get the cheap seats in the bleachers for about $10.

 

RE: Do you think that the Colts team is better than any of the 49er teams of Montana/Steve Young?

Bear in mind, there are only 17 regular season games in NFL, vs 190 in MLB!!!

 

RE: Do you think that the Colts team is better than any of the 49er teams of Montana/Steve Young?

Actually 16 v 162 but I take your point.

 

Unfortunately money talks... and common sense no longer applies. Maybe the guys at the top who

would make such decisions would like to say how much money they earn, as there wages come directly from the money generated at all levels of the sport.....


money money and more money....