Does an even league mean a better league?

One think I must say I do like about the whole thing is how the whole money thing seems to fall apart for England when international matches are on. The EPL is the biggest and richest club comp, but the English national team are the ultimate underachievers in the sport, never making it very far in the WC. The same thing is going to happen with rugby soon I suspect. England's one triumph in 2003 will forever be known as a flash in the pan as the clubs look more to foreign players and get greater power to put their own interests ahead of any semblence of national development.

David V I do agree on the youth development. I did list it as part of the reasons why clubs succeed before. Dan yeah you didn't say solely but you don't seem to rate the art of buying good foreign players which is a skill itself. Fair enough if you believe youth development is more important due to personal reasons. However i think you find most world class clubs have a key player who is the product of the youth system. Barcelona has Messi and puyol. Ajax has cruijff. Santos produced pele. Madrid produced rual, Benfica eusebio Manchester produced a giggs, beckham, scholes, neville brothers. You'll find that all dynasties are underpinned by local players + few foreign superstars especially the earlier dynasties where In the past there was a limit on foreign players. you won't find many world class teams without a player produced from the youth academy.

dasilva, "why should club success should SOLELY be based on ability to develop their own players." Well, I never said success should "SOLEY" be based on it, but I certainly believe it should be more important than your ability to shop around. Maybe it's a result of growing up in Sydney with League and having hatred for rich clubs bred into me because of the way that they bought their way to success (eg: Manly) while contributing barely anything to general player development. Soccer may be the world game, but the way these big clubs are run has always made it feel like the play ground of the mega-rich to me.

Dan and dasilva, the reason some of these great clubs stayed on top for so long was because they actually had exemplary scouting, recruiting and development policies. Ajax have a world-famous youth system, for one.

Dan why should club success should SOLELY be based on ability to develop their own players. Even a sport like AFL you still have clubs that pick up players develop by other clubs, transfers etc. The ability to buy good players that suit the style of the club is pretty important. Arsenal manage to buy the likes of Fabregas and Henry who were rejects of their respective clubs and turn those two in one of the best players in the world. shouldn't that be a legitimate success to be celebrated. Buying a collection of world class players doesn't necessarily buy a team the league. Good coaching, buying the right style of player (shevchenko a great player was a flop in chelsea) is just as important, tactics made by coaches are just as important.

David V whilst there is no argument in what you say, how much does futbol (and sport) really unify nations? Iraq won the Asian Cup a few years back, which is a great achievement, yet Shiites and Sunnis still dont get along? Sam at subbies level (the Sydney rugby comp below Premier) I would estimate the majority of blokes would not be from the "establishment", certainly from my experience this is the case, I guess a lot of the ex-GPS boys wouldnt like to be smashed by Islander boys. There are also a lot of guys who played rugby league and for whatever reason decided to play rugby a go, surprise surprise we even get a few futbol guys giving it a go too.

Football is a far more legitimate unifying force than other football codes, owing to the fact it's played everywhere by people from all walks of life. It doesn't carry dark agendas around.

Mate, if Rugby isn't too complex for Kiwis, then it's not too complex for anyone ;) .

Dan I played football in an area where there were as many Anglo names as European (or Mediterannean). It was by far the most diverse. You only have to look at the Socceroos teams backgrounds: Schwarzer (German), Bresciano and Grella (Italian), Cahill (Samoan), Kennedy (Anglo), Neill (Anglo), Chipperfield (Anglo), Wilkshire (Anglo), Kewell (Anglo) Sterjovski (Macedonian). This was the kind of backgrounds I played with so my version is different to yours..Any yes Rugby was a rich schoolboys sport. Maybe it is different in NZ and Ireland, but in Sydney it not as widespread into the less wealthy communities. Perhaps the rules are too complex for us Westies..

Sam, Rugby is far from elitist in a lot of areas (travel to NZ some day for the full country version) and has been for a while now. I went to a public school that wasn't all that flash and our main sporting team was a Rugby team and believe me when I say it was ethnically far more diverse and accepting than our primarily Mediterranean soccer team. People just have the elitist view because of the GPS rich-boy schools and the image of English rugby. No one ever talks about how 1 in 10 people play the game in country's like Fiji, or how the game is the only sport that unites both North and South Ireland (well, Northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland).

Some valid points fellas, firstly, on dasilva's point about Australian cricket: International test matches (cricket or otherwise) are one arena where I don't argue for the "even league" because in essence the national team is supposed to be the best the nation can produce and if one nation is far better set up and produces far better players, then more power to them. This is not the case with club competitions because the money factor means that the players in the best clubs can often be 90% bought and thus have no reflection of the club's ability to produce talent, but rather reflects nothing more than the effectiveness of a bunch of bought and paid for mercenaries taken from places that are apparently better adept at producing talent than the club itself. You talk of false evenness, but that is false dominance if you ask me. But anyway, back to the main point. Yes dynasties are remembered, but checkered championships are also something to be marveled at. I personally found great joy in watching 7 different teams win the NRL premiership until Melbourne and Brisbane finally brought the cycle to an end (and even then neither team managed more than a single GF win). It's one of my big issues with S14 v NRL. I personally prefer the rugby, but seeing a team like Wests Tigers come and take the title from nowhere in 2005 is highly unlikely in the S14, however, that's more because of the incredible systems the kiwis have in place. And yes, you're right, I do admire the Crusaders for their dominion over the S14, but they're also a side that has just built its own house and are masters at player development; they just seem to breed world class rugby players! No needing a billion dollars like all these suddenly rich European clubs, they just make it themselves from the ground up most of the time. And that is something to be truly respected. Even with those facts however, I just find myself feeling relieved when they don't win, because seeing them take the prize so often gives the competition a sense of inevitability that makes it boring and predictable in ways that the AFL, NRL, NFL never are...

True Tah Pre-HAL level the clubs themselves who were ethnic were not really inclusive. The HAL has changed this. I can tell you when I played football as a kid at school or club level I could name you numerous players from different backgrounds. It was the sport most kids played, and rugby league was what everyone talked about. Rugby Union was not a sport I or any of my friends ever really followed. It just never really got talked about where I lived. Rugby Union may have had the Ella's and the like, however for me it still has that elitist feel about it. It might be changing, but I don't know enough about what is happening to be quite honest??

Sam union's history in Australia may not have been as inclusive as it should have been but there are guys from all sorts of backgrounds playing, we've had national captains of Middle Eastern (Shehadie), Aboriginal (Ella), African (Gregan) and Italian (Eales) extraction. In fact, Australian futbol at the elite level pre-HAL was not really that inclusive either.

Dasilva Not only that. Rugby union also is a very elitist game, and is much worse in terms of inviting people from other backgrounds into their sport. Football at least is played by players from all backgrounds at all levels. Dan I assume you are a rugby union supporter, so it is a bit rich telling us football supporters about the benefits of egalitarianism and fairness. Yes there are dynasties in football , but had you ever heard of the Randwick Rugby Union club in the 80's, or the St George Dragons in the 60's. They were also dynasties that existed in both rugby codes. And yes, people still talk about those teams.

"They set the standards which other teams aspire to reach which often raises the overall standards of the game." Isn't that the other point to be made- when Real Madrid, Benfica and Ajax were dominating, even when Juventus and Liverpool had their years of success, the standard of competition they faced was extremely high.

David V. Yeah I realise that dynasty last for a very long time. However dynasty end and a new team will eventually take their place. Nothing is permanent in football as there's always next season. Dan Lets look at an example closer to home and more of a traditional australian sport. The Australian Cricket team have been dominating cricket for almost 2 decades. A dynasty it self. So did West indies in cricket in the late 70s and 80s. and early 90s. Do the public admire their great ability. The ability to have a good management, coaching, talent to dominate the world. Or do we then create rules in trying to bring those teams down to create a false sense of evenness and competitiveness. People talked about creating a world XI, allowing Australian 2nd XI competing, having another nations picking Australian players not good enough for Australia first team to even up the competition. In the end all of that was rubbish and also changing the rules to combat their effectiveness. In the end most of that suggestion was rubbish as it was anti-sport. If australia weren't a dynasty, then series like the 2005 Ashes, 2001 series vs India, 1999 vs west indies wouldn't been so great where you see Australia get toppled by a determine opposition. Ask any Indian about how great that series victory in 2001 or any English about the 2005 ashes. It was a fluke one off victory but for the fans of the opposition it was enough. In the end we should celebrate the achievements of great teams instead of complaining about lack of competition. Great teams are role models to the world and they show the world exceptional talent and skills. They set the standards which other teams aspire to reach which often raises the overall standards of the game. They give joy to neutrals and if teams manage to beat them it will be even more sweet. When the dynasty eventually are toppled another teams take their place.

Well those were dynasties that dominated over a particular period of time, and in the case of Real Madrid, Ajax and Benfica they held sway for very long periods of time. But talking of the Ajax and Benfica dynasties usually only take one or two particular generations of players into account because they were legitimately among the best sides on the world at the time. Teams like Panathinaikos, Anderlecht and Partizan Belgrade also had dynastic teams in the 60s, whereas Gremio (in the Gaucho or Rio Grande do Sul league) and Nautico (in the Pernambucano league), as well as Botafogo with Garrincha and Didi and later Jairzinho and Gerson can also count. As did River Plate and Independiente's great sides in Argentina.

Dan There are many rich clubs in the world but only fraction of them are very successfull. Money is a prerequisite for some success but it's not the only factor as most clubs in europe these days are rich. You have to have good youth development, good scouting, good training and tactics. Clubs have to make efficient use of their money. Manchester City are struggling despite a rich billionaire taking over the club Dynasties don't last forever. Real Madrid has gone through period where they struggle. Ajax is currently in a period where they haven't had much success. Benfica is no longer the dominating the portuguese league.

People today talk in awe of what Real Madrid accomplished in winning the first 5 European Cups, and especially thrashing Eintracht Frankfurt 7-3 in Glasgow in 1960. Them and later Benfica and Ajax were simply awesome when watching them blow hapless opponents off the park, just watching it was an experience to be savoured that subsequent generations' eyebrows are raised even hearing about it.

Really? Football is about achieving rare, often token wins against corporate billionare powerhouse teams? Shit... well whatever floats your boat I suppose :-S . Personally I'll stick with the football that's about teams getting an even share of the playing talent and thus an even shot at glory.