Today I'll take a reprieve from the NFL to discuss what the rest of the world knows as "football." The Confederations Cup, regarded by many as the precursor to the World Cup, is well underway and the U.S. already eliminated. As saddened as I am by this, I can hardly say I am particularly surprised by the result.
Despite certain fanatical advocates who claim that Major League Soccer is on even footing with the top European teams, the general concensus remains that there is a clear desparity across the pond. And why shouldn't it be this way? In Europe, "football" is perhaps the most widespread commercial enterprise, attracting high-end attention from the likes of a former Italian Prime Minister (Silvio Berlusconi, owner of Serie A club AC Milan) and a Russian oil tycoon (Roman Abramovich, owner of English Premier League team Chelsea FC). In America, some wouldn't even consider it a sideshow to the Superbowl, the World Series, and the NBA Finals.
So what separates the two sides: the Americans and the Europeans? First of all, TV exposure and other such monetary opportunities ensure that only the big-time clubs compete against US club (imagine the Superbowl champs going to play against NFL Europa teams). This favor towards international giants is understandable given the appeal of such teams to the United States audience, but in the end it skews the results of such friendly matches. Such irregular competition is not the best formula to decide who has the competitive edge.
Differences in league rules are also a divisive force between the U.S. and Europe. The United States uses the draft system for nearly every sprt of any national acclaim, which is aimed towards increasing the competitiveness and parity of the participating teams. The idea of allowing the worst team to choose the best potential player is thoroughly American, for it is not often shared by the rest of the sports world.
European soccer (and generally the rest of the world's leagues as well) is based almost purely on capital: the club with the most money can get the best players, ideally translating into success. There is no draft process, making it more similar to college football than the NFL. The transfers of Manchester United forward Cristiano Ronaldo and AC Milan midfielder Kaka (for $102 million and $92 million, respectively) exemplifies the idea that permeates the world of professional football: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
In addition, the leagues themselves affect the status of their clubs. The MLS, NFL, and MLB are all singular entities that represent all the franchises in their respective leagues. In Europe, each club is its own independent organization; while they are tied to a collective governing body in nation Football Associations and FIFA, the restrictions imposed upon these clubs are much less strict than those of American sports. The European transfer market is essentially unregulated, allowing any team with enough dough to buy as many players as they want. There is no salary cap because wage budgets are set by the individual owners, allowing clubs to pay players as much as is required to get their signature.
Since Major League Soccer lacks any such transfer market (and any deals from outside have to go through the MLS, which owns the rights to all player contracts), it is difficult to make a fitting analogy that will strike a chord with American readers who do not follow intercontinental soccer. To illustrate the dominance of wealth, imagine if one NFL team held the top four picks in the Draft. In addition, they can pay each player as much as they wish, with no restrictions on incentives or contracts. An epitome of parity and fairness? I think not.
So when the MLS is accused of being a weaker league, I think we should take pride in the fact that we have a system that fosters competition and the opportunity for success for all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment