What is the best structure for a sporting league?
Roar Guru By arthur pagonis, 21 May 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, baseball, Basketball, football, NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union
Related coverage
- Basketball news
- Baseball news
- Football news
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby League news
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
It fascinates me when I look into the physical makeup and the chemistry of different sporting leagues around the world.
And Australia is the greatest sporting country in the world on in terms of the number of supported leagues, when you consider our the number of people in the country.
The AFL is virtually a ‘FTPC’ League. A For The Players and Coaches League. It is not a NFP, Not for Profit, but it might just as well be.
At years end, the Socialistic side of Australian football ensures that the central body, the AFL, holds all the money, mostly from television rights, in trust and delegates it to the clubs as required to ensure their future.
Most other Australian Leagues are FTPC with a strong hint of NFP.
The A-League, NRL, Super Rugby, Cricket, ABL (baseball), NBL, AHL(hockey) all exist because the founding fathers and the administrators now realise that players, coaches, admin, medical and associated staff can all have a pay day on a given week…if the club or the league doesn’t collapse through attrition. Many AUstralians make a living from playing sport or being associated with sport somehow.
So every week at AFL level you will not see 10 teams, but 18. A country of our size should really only be able to support 10 teams. While the quality of the teams will be diluted, there are still eight or so teams each year with the chance to win it all.
And at least 14 teams with a chance of making the eight
If the AFL was only a 10 team competition you would have a huge rise in the ferocity of the matches, magnificent athletes at almost every position and great depth in the reserves.
The AFL would probably head towards private ownership of clubs. But fortunately for AFL fans, this has not happened.
Now the Americas and Europe hold completely different theories about the approach to sporting leagues.
The term “league” was adopted by American baseball, football, basketball and hockey, which have been played professionally for years. Some have introduced drafts and salary caps.
In Europe, on the other hand, it is largely “free for all”. There is no thought of equal competition.
The team with the most money and buying power wins. Teams like Man U and Man City, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Barcelona, Inter, Chelsea get to the top and stay there because of their bank balances.
Which formula do you prefer?
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- AFL, baseball, Basketball, football, NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union
May 21st 2012 @ 9:02am
Football United said | May 21st 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Fair as in everyone plays each other once or twice and without stupid artificial restrictions that punish successful teams. Everything else such as conferences, unequal draws, salary caps and drafts is simply just a cash grab by leagues and ruins the point of having a competition in the first place. I’m not a fan of finals either as they just reward mediocrity rather than truly see who is the best team.
May 21st 2012 @ 9:23am
sheek said | May 21st 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
FU,
Sometimes practicality needs to proceed absolute fairness when discussing how comps are structured. There’s no point wasting too much emotional energy over this, since in about 90% plus of cases, irrespective of the structure, the best team will win through.
The AFL has 18 teams, but home & away is capped at 22 rounds. Do you really suggest that there should be a 34 game home & away season? Good thing you’re not playing then!
To fit into 22 rounds, everyone plays each other once (17 games), plus the other 5 teams in your conference (5 games), for 22 games. There’s a final 8 system, so plenty of opportunity for the best teams to go through.
If you’re not good enough (in an 18 team comp) to make the final 8, then you’re simply not good enough full-stop…..
May 21st 2012 @ 5:48pm
Football United said | May 21st 2012 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
no i see the AFL has problems with this but if they added a few more teams, surely they could just play each other once and be done with it.
i watch Super Rugby regularly and since the reform, it has given conferences, caps and uneven fixtures a dirty feeling for me. whats the point, in a league style format, when you play teams twice and some not at all? if it was a HC style comp it wouldn’t matter but now the whole thing is silly and i wouldn’t like other leagues to follow this.
May 22nd 2012 @ 11:07am
nomis said | May 22nd 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Oh man! I love conference style comps
May 21st 2012 @ 9:27am
sheek said | May 21st 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Arthur,
There’s an intriguing irony between Europe & North America in the dichotomy between politics/economics & sport/leisure.
In Europe, the politics of the socialist leaning ‘nanny states’ is about to implode. The rest of us want to wish we won’t get too burnt, but burnt we will get. In sport, however, as you suggest, it’s every club for themselves.
In North America, especially USA, it’s the land of money & opportunity. if you’re not serious about making a buck, well, you just aren’t serious. Yet with their sport, the Americans are actually quite socialist in their approach.
Go figure…..
May 21st 2012 @ 9:49am
Ian Whitchurch said | May 21st 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Sheek,
This is easily proved by showing the utter economic collapse of Sweden and Finland. Hmm, they are doing fine. Terrifically good, in fact, especially considering they both have welfare states, and one of them relies on a flailing and failing phone company.
Oh. Wait. Maybe this Keynes bloke was onto something with “having control of your own currency is good, because sometimes you just need to print money”, and “government cutbacks in a recession are bad”.
Of course, this isnt going to stop people who see economics as a morality play from going “lalalalla lal la la I dont seee that la la laaaa” to facts like Spain was in budget surplus before the crisis hit, or that Germany brought in a massive 50 billion euro fiscal stimulus plan in 2009, or that governments who can print their own money like Finland can currently borrow as much as they want for a price of nothing in real terms.
Finally, regarding sports teams, the relentlessly socialist NFL and AFL are going really well. Something about a league where teams dont go broke with regularity encouraging fans and TV money, I suppose.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-02/finland-s-banks-are-winners-on-haven-demand-regulator-says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/germany-europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7257999.stm
May 21st 2012 @ 6:23pm
The Bush said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Finland is part of the Eurozone…
May 21st 2012 @ 6:29pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
TheBush,
You’re right, and its a miracle it’s avoided being nailed onto a cross of euros. Sweden , however, certainly isnt.
May 21st 2012 @ 10:14am
Redb said | May 21st 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
No to private ownership – you cant get value unless you remaove the salary cap and there too many good reasons to retain it.
No to 10 teams – why give any other league a free hit to fill the void. As soon as a team is wiped out a large number of the fans are disenfranchised from the game.
Also when the AFL was the VFl with 12 teams, there were still cellar dwellers. Sth Melb and Fitzory still struggled.
May 21st 2012 @ 10:24am
The Cattery said | May 21st 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
There are three out of 18 teams really struggling at the moment, it’s possible to mount an argument that the talent is spread far too thinly.
The atlernative argument is that more contracts (currently around 900 professional contracts in the AFL), means more opportunity, means more incentive for people to put in the hard work to make that level.
1,800 teenagers enter the draft each year, and around 80 of them are chosen. Some of those who miss out get picked up as rookies, and actually end up doing exceptionally well (Matt Boyd, bulldogs skipper, is a case in point), others will enter the second tier leagues, and might end up getting picked up as mature age players 4, 5, 6 years down the track. More of the latter will be encouraged to continue working hard at their game, knowing an opportunity may yet arise in the future.
May 21st 2012 @ 11:48am
Australian Rules said | May 21st 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
There’s a proposition from non-AFL folk that the AFL is predictable – dominated by a couple of teams which everyone can pick to be in the finals at the beginning of the season.
I don’t understand that – this season in particular…there’s been a new “flag favourite” after each round.
If the draft and salary cap show us anything, it’s that it makes the compeittion more even. Across the last 10 years, there has been Premiership winners from QLD, NSW, VIC, SA & WA. Can any other comp in the world boast such an even spread?
Compare that to the Premier League. Before this year, only 3 teams had won the PL over the last 15 years (Man Utd, Chel, Arse). And this year, it took a gazillion dollars for another to finally win. I like our system much better.
May 21st 2012 @ 4:20pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | May 21st 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
“Before this year, only 3 teams had won the PL over the last 15 years ”
For the 17 year period – from 1967 to 1983 – only 4 teams (Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn & North Melbourne) won every VFL Grand Final.
May 21st 2012 @ 4:35pm
stabpass said | May 21st 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
You mean before the AFL, before salary caps and national draft and other equalisation measures, so not relevant at all.
FUIL says Paris has a population of 2 million, but it actually has 12 million, you are about that close again with this post.
May 21st 2012 @ 4:49pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | May 21st 2012 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
FACT:
For the 17 year period – from 1967 to 1983 – there was no salary cap, no national draft & no equalisation measures in English club football.
During this 17 year period (when only 4 teams won the VFL Grand Final), 9 teams won the English Division 1 (equivalent of EPL title).
Put that in your pipe & smoke it!
PS: During this 17 year period, Leeds & Derby Conty won more titles than Man United, or Arsenal, who both only won ONE – repeat ONE – title each; same as Man City.
May 21st 2012 @ 5:06pm
The Cattery said | May 21st 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
That statistic of 9 Div 1 champions in 17 seasons is an incredible one, hard to imagine these days.
It’s changed a fair bit over the past 20 seasons, with only five different Premier League champions (compared to 11 AFL premiers in the same period, and 13 different grand finalists), and clearly the latter is due to the AFL’s equalisation policies.
In one sense, soccer doesn’t need such equalisation policies because the game itself encourages an equal contest. On any day, anyone can beat anyone, and you would not necessarily say that about the AFL, especially in recent years.
But the fact that there has been a concentration of trophies in so few clubs in the Premier League indicates just how far the pendulum has swung in terms of money dictating who can win and who can’t.
When you look back at those 9 different winners, and see the diversity on offer, one can’t help thinking that things have taken a turn for the worst in England.
May 21st 2012 @ 5:57pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | May 21st 2012 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
In the past I’ve been totally against Salary Caps in Football but, after many hours of frustration picking my Fantasy Football team for various club competitions, I now realise Salary Caps are a simple method to level the football playing field, which has been hugely influenced by private capital.
The major issue with Salary Caps has proven to be enforcement.
Even with just 16 teams to monitor, the AFL & NRL have failed in their monitoring programmes and, even today, it seems no one believe Chris Judd is actually employed by Visy, thereby allowing a huge chunk of money to be exempt from the Salary Cap.
Now, can you imagine enforcing a salary cap across the 53 UEFA nations? Apart from the usual “enforcement issues” relating to cross-border financial matters, there will also be the added issue of fluctuations in currency values & huge difference in inherent wealth.
What would we have as the Salary Cap for UEFA?
Can we honestly expect the same salary cap for clubs in the EPL & clubs in the Meistaradeildin (the Premier League of the Faroe Islands?)
May 21st 2012 @ 6:04pm
The Cattery said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
It’s not easy, worst of all, the powerful clubs themselves will have a huge bearing on decision making processes, so I wouldn’t try and make out it’s easy for one second.
May 21st 2012 @ 6:31pm
Titus said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
The difference with English Football is that just being in the Premier League is a sign of success, the whole year is a battle to survive and every win is savoured, it doesn’t necessarily matter if you aren’t a chance to win it. Taking points from one of the big clubs is like winning a final.
There are European spots to play for, FA cup matches and even teams in the leagues below are well supported as they play for promotion. The few teams at the top are on another level, they are playing in the world league to be the best in the world.
I personally find this far more exciting than the Australian salary capped leagues that just keep playing each other over and over again, half way through the season half the teams are no chance and the season is over(time to tank)
I honestly don’t think having a salary cap designed to keep all teams equal would make the EPL more interesting.
May 21st 2012 @ 6:36pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Fussball,
The Financial Fair Play rules have actually given UEFA a bigger headache than just the salary cap – they need to track not only the outgo going to players, but also the clubs income and other expenses.
A straight salary cap is pretty simple to enforce, if you require players to be registered with your federation. Trying to enforce the financial viablity of your constituent clubs is much more difficult.
As a side point, in the case of the AFL, the third-party-payments used by Chris Judd and Visy now come under the cap, as does the costs of the Breakfast Point accomodation and the salary of the ex-Sydney talent Scout that GWS hired.
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html
May 21st 2012 @ 6:54pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Ian
For me, the new FFP Rules are one method to monitor whether clubs are living within their means, since banks & other lenders seem to be ignoring basic fiscal responsibilities when lending money to football clubs in Europe. (Although, the GFC has demonstrated lenders have been ignoring weak balance sheets of all companies & individuals – not only football clubs).
In relation to the Salary Cap – how would it work in Europe, where you have 53 nations competing for labour but there are extreme disparities in the wealth across the 53 professional football leagues.
I ask again the question I asked The Cattery: What would we have as the Salary Cap for UEFA?
Can we honestly expect the same salary cap for clubs in the EPL & clubs in the Meistaradeildin (the Premier League of the Faroe Islands?)
What about the emerging Asian markets? Already, wealthy Chinese football clubs & clubs financed by petro-dollars in the Gulf, are splashing the cash. Are you suggesting we have a Global Football Salary Cap?
May 21st 2012 @ 5:08pm
sheek said | May 21st 2012 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
For what it’s worth, I like a socialist approach to sport. If you have a comp of 12, or 16, or 20, or 24 clubs, or whatever, you don’t want to lose any of them. But you can add to them (note to A-League especially & also NRL).
There’s something whimsically comforting about your great grand dad talking to your grand dad about Essendon playing Collingwood (insert own club & code) in the 1890s, then your grand dad telling your dad about Essendon playing Collingwood in the 1930s, then you dad telling you about Essendon playing Collingwood in the 1970s, & you telling your son about Essendon playing Collingwood in the early 2000s.
This is something the money hungry suits fail to understand or appreciate. Or treasure. It’s about the history, the tradition, even the tribalism. Shared memories by fans from all clubs in the one comp.
If preserving all the traditional clubs means having a salary cap & draft, or even a marquee player, & bringing in father-son & long-service exceptions, then I’m for all those things.
Or even moving clubs around, as the AFL did with South Melbourne to Sydney & Fitzroy to Brisbane, & the Americans do regularly in their major leagues.
The AFL, NRL, A-League, Currie Cup, NPC, Sheffield Shield, EPL, etc are all “families”. The clubs making up those families will go through their highs & lows. But ultimately, they must be protected & preserved.
May 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am
stabpass said | May 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Really good post.
May 21st 2012 @ 6:43pm
The Bush said | May 21st 2012 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
I’m not really sure what the Author is going about with all these acronyms, but it is an interesting general topic – to salary cap or not to salary cap?
Certainly promotion and relegation is something I really like, but at the same time I am always amazed and impressed at the NRLs ability to equalize. Even Cronulla has risen again; it’s a good thing.
I do believe that unless the AFL and NRL adopt conferences, something needs to be done to address the lack of a home-and-away schedule, it is inherently unfair.
May 21st 2012 @ 7:13pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | May 21st 2012 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
It’s interesting to discuss this topic today and many of us are focusing on having an even competition.
But, perhaps, we are over-dramatising the negative impacts on fans if their team is NOT winning the competition?
Just in on Twitter Stuart Dykes, who describes himself as “project consultant at Supporters Direct, fan of FC United/FC Schalke 04″ provided information about what is important to fans at Bundesliga club, Borussia Mönchengladbach.
Mönchengladbach avoided relegation 12 months ago from the top football league in Germany, when they won a play-off against Bundesliga 2 team, vfl Bochum, This season, just ended, Mönchengladbach was flying & eventually finished 4th & qualified for the Europa League.
Mönchengladbach recently conducted a survey and 27,685 fans took part.
The result that grabbed my attention from this survey was: 62% of Mönchengladbach’s fans said winning wasn’t the most important thing. Friends, family, loud singing, beer, sausage & party were more important than winning!
So, maybe, fans – real, loyal sports fans – don’t care if the team is super-successful or not. They just want to be involved with their team?
Source: http://www.borussia.de/de/aktuelles-termine/news/borussia-news/news-detailansicht.html?tx_ttnewstt_news=5084&cHash=2d546b20cd20b80a90ff6790e6d74dd9
May 22nd 2012 @ 9:31am
stabpass said | May 22nd 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
You really needed a survey to work this out !, no-one likes to to win everything, just as no-one likes to lose everything, most people want a even competition, with everyone having a decent crack and chance ………most people that is !!.
Sport is entertainment and a distraction from the realities of life, people want to have fun, and ride the highs and lows with their team, family and friends.
May 22nd 2012 @ 11:11am
nomis said | May 22nd 2012 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I must admit, I like comps with fewer teams (maybe just state sides or big cities), where the geography of all teams is better known. It seems all codes are hell-bent on expanding too much. I know it’s all about expansion and money, but still…