An opinion by an idiot:
Counter: why does it have to be fair?
#Murican sports’ OWNERS demand that their leagues be fair. American Fans want their teams to win, and couldn’t give two shits about any other team. Oh, they do worry, or double-down, when a team is too pathetic: either it’s “Won’t someone help that poor team?” or, “Just dissolve them, they’re so pathetic; look, they don’t have any fans coming to games; that town doesn’t deserve a major sports team.”
Some quotes and my responses (that’s why you’re all here, right?):
The gap between the elites and everyone else has increased. In the Premier League, seven teams have broken the 90-points barrier (2.37 points per game) in the past decade. Contrast this with England’s top flight in the 1980s: Not only were there zero teams who reached the same points per game equivalent of 90 points, there were only two that broke the 80-point barrier.
Changing wins from two points to three points drastically changed overall strategy: winning is better than twice a tie. In the olden days, a win and a loss were equal to two ties. Now, one win and one loss is preferable to two ties.
So, claiming equivalency under different rules is foolhardy.
Given the globalized game, the flow of money and the very notion of superstars who attract eyeballs, those who believe that football needs to have superclubs and punching bags to maximize revenue may have a point.
Who the fuck believes that?? Teams earn their place in the top leagues by being the best in the leagues below. It’s a meritocracy, as to billionaire socialism.
But being better requires spending more and spending wisely, and it means finding revenue resources. Wrexham seems to be able to find the revenue; won National League last year, in 2nd Place in League 2 right now.
This fact may or may not depress you. As for me? I’d be grateful if we reminded ourselves every so often that what we’re watching – one team with five, 10 and even 40 times the resources of their opponents – isn’t just unfair. It’s also out of keeping with the history of the sport.
Nothing in this opinion column discusses the history of the sport, besides the changes to the game as a result of giving three points for a win, which, yes, changed the sport for the better.
Oh, and teams discovered that if their revenue goes up, they can spend more. And by investing worldwide, some teams were successful based solely on their history in the sport. Why do Man U spend so much? Their history, as well as every other Top team, generates revenue.
So, teams are NOT supposed to try to win, which requires increased spending, and which requires increased revenue?
Or, should the world’s soccer leagues allow worse teams better chances to compete, by, say, having the indentured servant system, AKA, drafts that favor teams that lose (whether by chance or on purpose)? Should low revenue teams get more money simply because they cannot generate their own revenue, by, say, enforcing spending caps and luxury taxes?
In short, who G’sAF about “fairness”? This American-eyeball-prostituting journalist is one.