>There was no Omar Sivori who refused to wear shin-guards, no disheveled, cocaine-driven Maradona, no Garrincha half-asleep at the right-wing, no pot-belly Ferenc Puskas who could not run 100 meters and yet would score hundreds of goals..
Yes because in the modern game, those kinds of players are a huge liability. Teams have figured out how to exploit the weaknesses of a talented no 10 that can't run and aid in defending.
And this has nothing to do with the "commercialization" of the game - gun to the astronaut's head, always has been.
>The teams may move from one city to another, the franchise is there to make money.
On the contrary, most EPL (and I think also European) teams lose money - despite the "commercialization". The biggest expense? Player salaries.
In Europe, there are no salary caps as in the US NBA and NFL. There is also the risk of relegation. If a team relegates to a lower division, they lose huge revenue from broadcasting.
So teams are desperate to avoid relegation, which causes them to desperately shell out for player salaries. But other teams are also in a similar situation, so they also shell out monies. It becomes an arms-race.
It's really a "workers' paradise" despite all the brouhaha about commercialization.
The US system protects franchises from both of these pressures as there are salary caps and no relegation. Additionally, the worst-ranking teams in one season get a help in having the best draft picks the next season, preventing dynasties like in Europe.
Foreign money really comes into buy prestige and sports-washing - not to make money.
I’m in Toronto, one of the hosts of the World Cup, and it’s very sad to see how international football is organized nowadays. It’s become a financial steamroller that’s totally hostile to fans. The main purpose is to extract massive government subsidies, charge as much as possible for tickets, maximize other revenues, and make as much profit as possible, exploiting the fact that many fans are willing to tale out loans, seek their cars, whatever, to see their clubs. It’s quite astounding - the tickets are way too expensive for most residents to afford. It’s more expensive to see a match than for me to travel to Europe. Truely disheartening. No idea where all this money is going either
Quite the quandary that millions and billions of dollars are served up around a ball rolling around a field. Insightful take and have signed up to read more!
The complaint has been made before, with good reason. I never watched champions' league matches. I watched my club's matches in Bundesliga and zweite Liga and attended it's second team playing lower leagues. I generally prefer watching zweite Liga to Bundesliga.
This is a great piece. But you seemed to really like the last World Cup though? Do you think the rules to compose a "national" team make it more organic and thus better than FIFA Europe? And what are your thought on this upcoming World Cup in the US? Going to any games? People are raging about the prices for seats!
I strongly dislike your portrayal of Maradona. It wasn’t his cocaine addiction that made him the greatest player of all time, but rather his genius that set him apart from the rest.
That said, I think there are two ways to understand the loss of emotiveness in today's football, which awakens your nostalgia for the old times:
1) The subordination of individuality to collective play, prioritizing the scheme over creativity, something a socialist could see as positive.
2) The creation of a collective player (team) that is more productive and efficient at the expense of individual skills, comparable to what Marx described for manufacturing or large-scale industry; in other words, the application of capitalist business logic to football, something a socialist would consider negative.
That is to say, as a socialist, I could be either satisfied or outraged when watching a football match.
Of course, when placing it in the context of the increasing commercialization you describe in your post, I think the second interpretation prevails.
>There was no Omar Sivori who refused to wear shin-guards, no disheveled, cocaine-driven Maradona, no Garrincha half-asleep at the right-wing, no pot-belly Ferenc Puskas who could not run 100 meters and yet would score hundreds of goals..
Yes because in the modern game, those kinds of players are a huge liability. Teams have figured out how to exploit the weaknesses of a talented no 10 that can't run and aid in defending.
And this has nothing to do with the "commercialization" of the game - gun to the astronaut's head, always has been.
>The teams may move from one city to another, the franchise is there to make money.
On the contrary, most EPL (and I think also European) teams lose money - despite the "commercialization". The biggest expense? Player salaries.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68713522
Isn't this lack of profitability the need to inject money into players because of all the foreign money is entering the EPL?
Not sure what your question is.
In Europe, there are no salary caps as in the US NBA and NFL. There is also the risk of relegation. If a team relegates to a lower division, they lose huge revenue from broadcasting.
So teams are desperate to avoid relegation, which causes them to desperately shell out for player salaries. But other teams are also in a similar situation, so they also shell out monies. It becomes an arms-race.
It's really a "workers' paradise" despite all the brouhaha about commercialization.
The US system protects franchises from both of these pressures as there are salary caps and no relegation. Additionally, the worst-ranking teams in one season get a help in having the best draft picks the next season, preventing dynasties like in Europe.
Foreign money really comes into buy prestige and sports-washing - not to make money.
It may be a "workers' paradise" but only for a small % of top players
despite or because of salary caps average NBA player makes $4.5m while an average French League 1 player makes $750k
Even in the top leagues like Premier league median player makes $3.5m less than median player in NBA or La Liga "only" $1.8m
So American system seems to be more communist
How do "winner take all markets" fit into this story?
I’m in Toronto, one of the hosts of the World Cup, and it’s very sad to see how international football is organized nowadays. It’s become a financial steamroller that’s totally hostile to fans. The main purpose is to extract massive government subsidies, charge as much as possible for tickets, maximize other revenues, and make as much profit as possible, exploiting the fact that many fans are willing to tale out loans, seek their cars, whatever, to see their clubs. It’s quite astounding - the tickets are way too expensive for most residents to afford. It’s more expensive to see a match than for me to travel to Europe. Truely disheartening. No idea where all this money is going either
Quite the quandary that millions and billions of dollars are served up around a ball rolling around a field. Insightful take and have signed up to read more!
The semi-final between PSG and Bayern was fun, though. Even though those two teams represent the worst of financialization in football.
The complaint has been made before, with good reason. I never watched champions' league matches. I watched my club's matches in Bundesliga and zweite Liga and attended it's second team playing lower leagues. I generally prefer watching zweite Liga to Bundesliga.
This is a great piece. But you seemed to really like the last World Cup though? Do you think the rules to compose a "national" team make it more organic and thus better than FIFA Europe? And what are your thought on this upcoming World Cup in the US? Going to any games? People are raging about the prices for seats!
I strongly dislike your portrayal of Maradona. It wasn’t his cocaine addiction that made him the greatest player of all time, but rather his genius that set him apart from the rest.
That said, I think there are two ways to understand the loss of emotiveness in today's football, which awakens your nostalgia for the old times:
1) The subordination of individuality to collective play, prioritizing the scheme over creativity, something a socialist could see as positive.
2) The creation of a collective player (team) that is more productive and efficient at the expense of individual skills, comparable to what Marx described for manufacturing or large-scale industry; in other words, the application of capitalist business logic to football, something a socialist would consider negative.
That is to say, as a socialist, I could be either satisfied or outraged when watching a football match.
Of course, when placing it in the context of the increasing commercialization you describe in your post, I think the second interpretation prevails.
Jump on the Knicks bandwagon!
A sport in which half the teams try on purpose to lose and avoid playing their best players all season?
Well let's not be so silent, for so long again. Brilliant, and from a well that is clearly For the Love of the Match.