In a
previous post, I talked about the
Structure of the NFL. I argued that in a country full of capitalism, the
structure of the sport I love is fundamentally socialist. It aligns with the
fundamentals of socialism that Karl Marx believed in, and wanted engrained in
society. Now, I don’t agree that socialism should be anywhere near the US
Capital, but it is in sports. Many of you may throw things after reading that
statement, but it’s the truth. The league structure of many leagues in America
is socialist. It’s most notably evident in the structure of the NFL.
For those who don’t know the structure of the NFL, it consists of 32 franchises that
compete for the Super Bowl. The NFL is essentially a cartel, independent
franchises or businesses that work together to establish rules and regulations
for their sport. The NFL also shares revenue between their 32 franchises, most
notably TV revenues. Every TV contract is done nationally, and negotiated by
the NFL with the TV Networks. The
structure of the NFL is basically one that bleeds socialism.
Enter the EPL or English Premier League, which is looked at as the top Soccer league in the world.
The EPL consists of 20 teams per year, and it changes by the year. How? The EPL
uses a system of promotion and relegation, where only the best and most
successful teams survive. Every year, the three worst teams in the EPL get
relegated to the lower division, the Football League Championship. Then, the
top three teams from that division get promoted to the EPL. Sounds a lot to me
like Capitalism, where only the best businesses survive.
The EPL is not only
capitalist with promotion and relegation, but with its financial structure.
Stefan Szymanski, a Professor in the University of Michigan School of
Kinesiology, and an expert in the economics of Soccer, came in and talked to my
Intro to Sport Management class about the financial structure of soccer. Among other
things, he told us that the EPL does very little shared revenue; most of it is
variable revenue, which each club collects on its own. If your club is a
popular one like Manchester United, you generate lots of revenue. Clubs also negotiate local TV contracts
because there is very little shared revenue.
Sounds much more like capitalism that we know and love.
The EPL also has looser entry requirements. Any team can
sign any player for any amount of money. There is no salary cap, or draft that
restricts entry into the league. It’s a
completely open system in Europe where socialism is more accepted. Pretty
amazing.
Now this comes from someone who is a huge NFL and football
fan. I’m not a fan of Soccer, and I find the sport very boring. However, the
facts are the facts.
The structure of NFL keeps every team financially stable, and
it clearly works. But, essentially it rewards mediocrity and provides no
incentive to win. My favorite team, the Philadelphia Eagles could go 16-0 or
0-16 and still receive over $100 million in TV Revenue, and be able to compete
again next year. This isn’t the case in the EPL. If you don’t perform, like in
the American economy, there are consequences. There is a hidden motivation to
win in the EPL.
Its funny that in a country where capitalism is preached,
that our sports structure is socialist. What’s even more comical is that in
Europe, where socialism is more prevalent, the structure of their most popular
sport is fundamentally capitalist.
I guess in this case, opposites do attract.
Im so glad that you wrote this post. I found your first post on the NFL to be quite interesting, and this one only expands on the concept. When I look at the two conflicting strategies exhibited in the NFL and the EPL, I am left to wonder which one is more successful. Each league is literally the epitome of their respective competitors and I find it interesting that each has been able to achieve success regardless of their economic strategies. It would be interesting to know if they have always held their respective views, for instance, has the NFL always practiced profit sharing? or is this something that has just come up under the last few Commisioners?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your earlier post regarding the socialist structure of the NFL, I was compelled to read this post because I liked your earlier one so much. This comparison between the EPL and NFL was something I began thinking about after I read your earlier post, as I weighed the pros and cons between leagues with salary caps and those without. I am opposed to the non-salary cap enforced leagues, because teams like Manchester United, Manchester City, Barcelona, and Real Madrid are free to buy the best players from across the world with impunity. This freedom allows for an intense consolidation of power and talent with these teams, leaving teams without billionaire owners on the outside looking in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am compelled to agree with the EPL's system of promotion and relegation. It is hard to conceptualize this idea to American sports leagues because the next step down is such a drastic change. College football teams aren't nearly as good as professional teams, minor league baseball teams are for the growth of prospects for organizations, not competition with MLB teams, and the NBAD-League is for development, hence the D. However, I know that teams in the Football League Championship can compete with the lower echelon teams of the EPL.
This system allows for lower market teams and struggling teams to have something to play for, while garnering media exposure as the fight to stay in the EPL. This is unlike the NFL and NBA, where teams are motivated to lose towards the end of the season to improve their draft stock (or draft odds in the case of the NBA lottery). I like this idea because teams are not going to be inclined to lose towards the end of the season just because they have a bad record.
With that said, I still was very entertained by your post and thought you presented some quality arguments. Great work.