WHY US sports are more socialist than European football



Soccer is the world’s favourite sport, but it’s also a cut-throat capitalist industry, dominated by a financially-powerful elite. In comparison, US sports leagues operate with revenue sharing, salary caps and a draft system. The world’s biggest cheerleader for capitalism follows socialist principles when it comes to sports. How does that work? And could European football one day follow in the footsteps of the NFL and NBA? Kick off! Reporter Janek Speight takes a look.

Report by Janek Speight
Camera: Manuel Vering
Editing: David Jacobi

▸ subscribe:
▸ help us create subtitles:
▸ our channel:

More football stories here:
Facebook:
Twitter:
Website:

Últimas noticias sobre Fútbol. Sigue la última hora de LaLiga Santander, la Champions League y toda la actualidad de los equipos Camisetas FRANCIA

31 opiniones en “WHY US sports are more socialist than European football”

  2. Neither are socialist. For a sport to be truly socialist, the teams/leagues would be collectively owned by the players instead of a few very rich owners that make money for no work.

  4. People complaining about US not having pro/rel system have no real knowledge about Geography. USA is a massive country with an area of 9 million sq. km which is significantly larger than England (130 thousand sq.km), Germany (357 thousand sq.km), Spain (500 thousand sq.km), France (543 thousand sq.km), Italy (301 thousand sq.km), and many other european nations combined .
    Let's say USA does have a pro/rel system and teams from small local clubs of Oregon, North Dakota, Arizona,Texas, kansas, Florida, Wisconsin, Maine, West Virginia end up on the 3rd division.. (for Europeans perspective, it is like having teams from small towns of Ireland, Denmark, Latvia, Portugal, Serbia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Russia, Kazhakhstan, all in a 3rd division battling for pro/rel) Imagine the travel cost and travel exhaustion the team have to undergo every week, and for what..? to get promoted or demoted to a new tier which may not be as prestigious as the first tier.

  7. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that US sports leagues are closed systems. However, I think you miss the mark in defining the "governmental" structure of American sports as socialist collectives. They aren't socialist in nature, they are monopolistic monarchies. Teams – not players – are afforded survival because American leagues are corporations that have a franchise system as opposed to a fluctuating union of individual companies such as the Premiere League and the EFL. When franchises are granted, they are in effect, granted nobility status and are subservient to the king/league. NFL players play at the top level only for an average of 3 years. So the competition is between players more so than between teams, as there is nowhere else to go once they leave the NFL. I suppose they could play in Canada or another football derivative league like Arena football, but it's not the same. Only the NHL and MLB have a de facto promotion and relegation system, but again it isn't for the teams, it's for the individual players. The players who can't make the "senior" level roster are sent down to the minors to stew or develop their game.

    The other competitive element is between sports leagues for revenue and exposure. With 4 primary major professional sports leagues AND NCAA college football (as a 5th league, and being the most lucrative amateur sports league in the world), you might say that it is a brand competition, with the individual team competitions just making it interesting. That's probably a reason that every professional American sports team has followings in all parts of the country and that regional pride in a team is not that big of a thing here like it w-ould be for a die-hard Dag & Red or Ipswich Town fan in England. Don't get me wrong: there are loyal fan bases here, especially if you live in those urban areas where the teams reside, but for the majority of those who don't live near them, you are just as likely to be a fan of a team 1000 miles away as you are of one 100 miles away. College sports are kind of the exception to that rule though, as there are many more universities distributed amongst all of the states than there are pro teams, so you aren't too far away from one of them, plus a great many people have attended a college playing in a major competition, so there's that alumnus aspect too.

    I might point out too, that the big 4 leagues make it hard for other team sports like rugby and soccer to carve out a slice of the TV pie. Soccer is drawing more and more, but has years to go before it can viably compete with the others. Ironically, the Premiere League probably has more exposure in the US than MLS. So to summarize: socialism predicates itself on being inclusive (in theory), while monarchy most definitely does not; and to that point, I feel the American sports system is – while capitalistic for sure – is more 12th century monarchy than a 21st century socialist/conservative paradigm. Think of the Buffalo Bills as the Duke of York and Arizona Cardinals as the Duke of Cumberland, both vying with each other, but still serving the king (and guaranteed a pension).

  10. The worst part is that you will have teams in the NFL or NBA for example intentionally lose games so they can be higher in the draft system. It is really stupid. I think that if the NFL had a relegation promotion system it would make it a lot more interesting.

  12. The US does it right. They favor competition, not dynasties. Soccer is a joke worldwide.

    Here in Brazil it used to be competitive because money was scarce for every club and they were all badly run. And we had playoffs. Now there is only 2-4 teams a year with a shot. And it will get worse.

  15. If u Call it socialist need billions of dollar to buy club and closed competition we’re the little dog with never get chance ye or right I call what it is their monopoly’s

  19. North American sports leagues are cartels. No two cities in the world are mad about hockey as Montreal and Toronto. However, they each have only one team each, Canadiens and Maple Leafs. They’re rivals on the ice, but they’ve collected to limit NHL expansion in Canada. They prevented Vancouver’s bid for a team in 1967. In 1979, the Habs, Leafs, Bruins, and Canucks opposed the WHA-NHL merger, because it would add teams in Canada and New England.

  21. wait..they can move teams to entire new cities and change names??…WHAT KINDA SORCERY IS THIS …what about the fans.what about the local community wtfffff…..imagine bayern munich in brussels or borussia dortmund in marseille or barcelona the actual pride of every cartalan on earht in madrid and vice versa lollllllll

  23. This video is dumb but I'm sure it was made to save face of US sports of why they have no relegation. It's clear why the US sports have to share revenue or have salary caps because they are the owners of the league and have closed it for everybody else. Nobody regulates so they regulate themselves because it's a bunch of billionaires making profit without risking relegation. Same like Florentino wants the super league, a bunch of billionaires making their own league to make more money. For example in the premier league, a club from a small town has the chance to get into the top and make those millions that the rest are making like Leicester or Leeds. You'll have to follow the process of moving up winning titles in the different divisions but it's possible and doable so there is an opportunity there. It's an equal opportunity for everybody that registers their club and start competing in the small leagues. In US, no you can't unless you are a billionaire and buy an existing team that is already in that group like NFL, MLB, NBA. There is no relegation, there is no opportunity to try to make it to the top because the ones in the top don't want to share the money they make with you the poor. That's capitalism at its finest. For example the MLS, is there relegation? No, only if you are an investor with 100s of millions you can buy a spot to get a team yourself because they are still on sale. But don't worry, there is no relegation so it's almost sure its a win win because the owners will give a city for your team to play and therefore get the fans from there. Can the USL teams be promoted to MLS? NO, there is no chance for your team, don't even dream about it because the money is there for the rich and not for the poor USL teams. This also brings another problem, teams are mediocre because the ones in the mid table don't care if they win or lose, they will stay in the league no matter what so there is no point in watching a mid table team; it gets boring. Whoever tried to find an argument making this video did no succeed at all; there are many points or arguments to show US sports as capitalist and socialist too, and you can also show European football as capitalists and socialists too so I believe this is a pretty dumb video in my opinion.

  25. Why are Germans so obsessed with socialism? At 2:00 he's really off about the Packers. The reason the Packers are so successful is because they've won multiple Super Bowls throughout the years, including the first ever championship. Even though the population of Green Bay itself is 100,000, the population of the nearby Milwaukee metro area is 2 million and the state as a whole (5-6 million people) supports them. They sell out every game, even preseason, and there's a 30-40 year waiting list for season tickets. Their success has fairly little to do with the NFL revenue sharing being socialistic.

  26. Imagine if the CCP bought a middle rung Premier League team like Crystal Palace ? Right in London and could dump billions into the team and have control of its advertising . They already own a piece of the NY Times. Why not ?

Comentarios cerrados.