Football (Soccer)

[Undertoad]

This is fascinating to me, probably not to anyone else.

In the US, things are usually structured so that it's really hard for any one team to remain dominant. In all major sports, the teams at the bottom are given first pick of new players each year. There is never a promotion/relegation system. Every team in the league feels it has the chance, with a few good years, to win the national title.

In American football, basketball, and now I think in hockey, there is a "salary cap" - teams can only spend up to a certain limit on players. Only in baseball can a team spend as much as it wants - and only in baseball are there dominant teams that are expected to lead the league. But baseball is also a very random sport, and subject to a lot of strange whim, so it's impossible to guarantee victory just by spending.

I think it's interesting that in nations that are more socialist, the league setup is less so. And here in capitalistic US, the leagues are run in a socialist way.

I also think it's intersting that where governments are fiercely controlling, the dominant game is soccer which has relatively few rules. You can lean 95% of the rules of soccer in five minutes. The rule book for Am. football is ridiculously huge and requires precision management, with an entire squad of referees, line judges and umpires.

[Elspode]

Even with the last place/first draft systems, money is what rules the day in American sports. One need look no further than baseball, where there is very definite and long-term correlation between dollars spent on talent to success on the field.