Differences; N American & European sport teams (split from Ice Hockey)

[Catalyst]

As clueless isn’t online at the moment, I’ll try and answer this for you.

The structure of soccer leagues in England is as follows:

There are four professional leagues which used to be called Division 1 (20 teams), Division 2 (24 teams), Division 3 (24 teams) and Division 4 (24 teams), giving a total of 92 professional clubs. There are countless non-professional leagues below this.
The leagues have been re-named over the last few years (the top league now being called ‘The Premiership’ for example) but the structure remains roughly the same. They are all under the control of the FA (Football Association), and are organised in a hierarchical manner with promotion and relegation each season. For example the bottom three teams in the Premiership are relegated each year, and three come up form the league below; the top two teams in that league automatically, with the teams in positions 3-6 playing a series of games called ‘the playoffs’ to qualify for the third spot.
Obviously everyone is trying to get their team into the top league as this is where the money is. It’s here where you play clubs like Manchester Utd, which you may of heard of (they are apparently the richest sports franchise in the world and were recently bought by an American, Michael Glazier, who the fans have decided to hate).
The clubs play each other once home and away each season, giving 38 league games a year in the Premiership and 46 in the other leagues. In addition there are two Cup competitions organised on a knock-out basis, the main one being the FA Cup which is the oldest such football competition in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup).
There is a similar structure to this in Scotland, although the leagues are not as strong; the Premiership in England is one of the top leagues in the world along with Seria A in Italy and ‘La Leagua’ in Spain.
The top few clubs in the Premiership also qualify to play in one of the two European wide cup competitions, where they play teams from Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Russian, Ukraine, Turkey etc. Again this is the target for many clubs as playing European football really brings in the money, with a guarantee of at least 6 games going up to 13 if you reach the final. It may not sound like much, but millions can be made for each match if you take into account the TV rights, plus the inter country aspect gives the games an extra buzz to the atmosphere.

Wow, there is so much i dont know about football. And so much im glad i dont know

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Well, my last question fell on its arse, so I'll ask something else I've never understood about North American sport:

What's the deal with clubs moving to a new city? I can only think of one example of that over here and its been a resounding failure. Does it happen often over there? Does it work? Do fans in the new location take to the club straight away or do they have to Build up a fan base? Do the old fans stay loyal even after the club has moved?

 

[pwilson]

Well, my last question fell on its arse, so I'll ask something else I've never understood about North American sport:

What's the deal with clubs moving to a new city? I can only think of one example of that over here and its been a resounding failure. Does it happen often over there? Does it work? Do fans in the new location take to the club straight away or do they have to Build up a fan base? Do the old fans stay loyal even after the club has moved?

There are different reasons why this happens. One reason it has been happening in the last decade or so is because the Canadian dollar cannot always compete with the American one. Therefore, several Canadian clubs have moved the clubs to America because the owners could no longer afford to keep them in Canada. This actually happens in the NHL, NBA, and most recently, the Montreal Expos, a Major League Baseball team, moved to Washington, D.C. In Montreal they would literally sometimes only have a few thousand fans attending games.

There are also other reasons, most of which revolve around money of course. If a team's stadium is getting old they will often try to get support from the community to increase taxes to help buy a new one. Sometimes this works and sometimes it is voted down. Sometimes the owners are willing to go ahead and pay for the new stadium but other times they move the team somewhere where they are willing to buy a new stadium.

As to whether it works, that all depends. The Quebec Nordiques moved to Colorado and became the Avs, who currently have the longest sell out streak in the NHL. Much of this has to do with the fact that they win. Obviously, when a team moves to a new area but isn't very good, they tend to get less support. Hope this ramble answers some of your questions.

 

[Robert]

Sure, it happens. The Washington Nationals were the Montreal Expos from 1969 through the end of last season. Teams are usually relocated for economic reasons. I believe the difference between the Canadian dollar and the US dollar is a contributing factor in moving hockey teams and baseball teams from Canada to the US.

As far as I know, fan support is immediate because folks get pretty excited about a sports franchise moving into their area.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

I'd guess that one of the main reasons that this doesn't happen in English soccer is that, with there being 92 professional clubs, most cities and large towns in England already have at least one club. The example I mentioned before involved a club moving from London, which has numerous clubs, to Milton Keynes a ‘new town’ built up during the 50’s & 60’s (most soccer clubs here are between 90-120 years old).

I assume the situation is different in North America. Is it the case that you have fewer sports franchises than cities with a large enough catchment area to support them? How many teams do you have in your various leagues?

 

[Motokid]

I think most of the American professional leagues have around 30 teams.

A big franchise switch I remember was the Baltimore Colts (American Football) moving to Indianapolis. I think the team owner just wanted a new stadium, and a new fan base. People in Baltimore were severly pissed off. Baltimore now has a new team, but it took almost 20 years to get it.

The problem with a large number of teams is that there's not enough talent to make for really good games. The talent gets spread too thin.

Sagging ticket sales, aging stadiums, and exploding interest in a new market are all good reasons for teams to change locations.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

We get the impression over here that most of the major league clubs play in large stadiums, which are always full and charge huge amounts per ticket. Is that not always the case then?

The situation with soccer here is complicated by the history of how the game started. In general the sports roots are as a working-class game with the stadiums built, as I said before, 90-120 years ago, in the centre of towns, often in residential areas. These stadiums don’t have huge capacities, especially since rulings came into affect forcing top-level clubs to be all-seater about 15 years or so back; traditionally you stood to watch soccer. Having said that, the stadiums also tend to have the crowd banked up very close to the playing surface, as close as you seem to get at basketball for example, which gives you an excellent atmosphere.
In our top league “The Premiership” I’d guess the average capacity is 30-35,000, the top one being Manchester Utd with 67,000 and plans to go up to 75,000. Most clubs at the moment would seem to be able to fill out larger stadiums if available; however the cost of building would get in the way of spending money on the “team” and involve abandoning the traditional stadium, both of which tend to be very unpopular with fans.

 

[Motokid]

Hockey and Basketball are typically played in arena's that seat around 20,000.

Baseball and Football I think have stadiums that seat anywhere from 30,000 and up. There was a trend back in the 1960's-70's I think to build bigger stadiums. Now I think the trend is shifting back to smaller stadiums. I know some of the larger Dome type stadiums and arena's could hold 70,000 to 100,000.

So the older stadiums are larger.

Yes, there are places where ticket sales are an issue. Which is part of the reason teams move. In many cases if the venues are not "sold-out" for almost every game, the teams have a hard time making any profit.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Baseball: A Gentleman's sport?

The current Baseball thread got me thinking about a book I've been meaning to get for a while that compares the two sports called Playing Hard Ball: County Cricket and Big League Baseball. Having done a little bit of googling on the subject I found these two quotes:

"It's a shame Smith did not ponder this fact though: the "brash" American sport has far more unwritten rules about behaviour on the pitch and not "showing up" the other side than the English gentleman's game. To show any significant enthusiasm after throwing a strikeout or hitting a home run is asking to be deliberately hit by the ball in the next inning (punishment beatings are an accepted and semi-sanctioned part of the game). In the so-called gentleman's game of cricket the players throw the ball in the air after a catch, shout and scream after a run out or for an lbw decision, and deliberately intimidate, 'bounce' and 'sledge' the opposition players. Baseball is nearly always played in a gentlemanly way, Cricket is (and has always been) brash. Ok, you get the odd punch-up in baseball, but those fights are nearly always because the unwritten rules of gentlemanly conduct have been broken." From an Amazon review of the book.

and...

"A difference between the sports is notable in the behaviour of fans. A cricket audience will usually appreciate excellent play by an opposing team, and show this by applauding or cheering for players of the team they are not supporting. Members of a baseball audience tend to be more partisan, and cheer primarily for their own team.

Standards of sportsmanship also differ. In cricket sportsmanship includes observance of the rules of the game even when it is not in one's favour. In baseball a player is expected to place his team above the rules – by claiming an out from a catch, for example, when he knows he trapped the ball. Sportsmanship in baseball is more concerned with showing respect for one's opponents; for example, stealing bases or laughing on the field when one has a big lead are both considered to be gross breaches of sportsmanship." from wikipedia.

I'd never been aware of the 'don't show up your opponent' aspect of baseball before, perhaps as the clips of American sport to we most regularly see over here are fights in Ice Hockey & Baseball and over the top touch-down celebrations. What do baseball fans think about the two quotes, in particular some of the things mentioned in the first. Is this an acurate description of your sport?

 

[novella]

Kenny, I meant to respond to this earlier.

I do think baseball has been a more intellectual, civilized game than most. All I know of cricket is sitting on a village green for endless hours talking about how long the sun will stay out, so I can't really address the comparison.

Unlike most other major American sports, baseball relies not on muscle and physical size, but on strategy and talent. Because there are no defensive and offensive teams, players have to be good at the whole sport. (Another reason why I prefer NL rules, which don't allow designated hitters in the pitcher's slot.) The analysis of each player's style and stats is a major part of the game. It's also true that baseball fans respect good play, even from the opposing team. They also have a deep, abiding affection for hometown players, even after they move on. (I've been in the stands for that-- when Gary Carter, Mookie Wilson, Darryl, and Lenny Dykstra all received hearty applause on different occasions when they return to Shea to face the Mets.)

. But I think baseball's gentility has been eroded over the past decade, particularly through the illegal use of steroids by bozos like Mark McGuire (all swing and no brain), and the self-aggrandizement, hubris, and violence exemplified by teams like the NY Yankees. There's a backlash movement now in team management to return to classic dress and grooming codes and reign in off-field and aggressive behavior

My English hub was amazed at the civility of baseball fans, esp. compared with football hooligans. He couldn't believe a stadium could be safe for families and children.

I tend to think cricket fans are becoming increasingly rabid, having watched a bit of some recent international matches last summer. And why are the players all wearing lurid pajamas all of a sudden?

 

[Kenny Shovel]

I do think baseball has been a more intellectual, civilized game than most. All I know of cricket is sitting on a village green for endless hours talking about how long the sun will stay out, so I can't really address the comparison.

I don’t really expect anyone to be in a position to make comparisons between the two; I was more interested in how baseball compared to the way it is described in those quotes and the perception of the sport in general.

Unlike most other major American sports, baseball relies not on muscle and physical size, but on strategy and talent.

Ok, that’s interesting and runs against some of the impressions I had got from the Mark McGuire steroid allegations that made it onto the sports bulletins over here. That gave the notion that scoring home runs relied far more on brute strength than timing, certainly more so than scoring runs in cricket.
Any reliance on team strategy is of interest to me as this is the aspect of sport I enjoy the most. I think I’m going to end up having to get that book.

Because there are no defensive and offensive teams, players have to be good at the whole sport. (Another reason why I prefer NL rules, which don't allow designated hitters in the pitcher's slot.)

Again that’s an aspect that appeals as the ability to rotate who is playing at anyone time seems rooted in a number of American sports but isn’t seen in the sports invented (or codified) by the Victorians.

The analysis of each player's style and stats is a major part of the game.

I was aware of the importance of stats in baseball which is similar to cricket; there are countless books of cricket stats available. I was less sure of any technical analysis of player’s technique, which again is a big part of cricket coverage.

It's also true that baseball fans respect good play, even from the opposing team…My English hub was amazed at the civility of baseball fans, esp. compared with football hooligans. He couldn't believe a stadium could be safe for families and children.

Soccer hooligans or American football ones? Anyway that seems more like a cricket or rugby crowd than a footie one to me.

I tend to think cricket fans are becoming increasingly rabid, having watched a bit of some recent international matches last summer.

Football style chanting has now arrived at English Test grounds, but as long as it is good natured and not abusive I don’t have a problem with it. English fans are only really catching up with the atmosphere you get in other parts of the world. India v Pakistan games aren’t exactly held in reverential silence and I still have a slight ringing in my ears from sitting directly in front of a calypso band during an England v West Indies game about 20 years ago!

And why are the players all wearing lurid pyjamas all of a sudden?

The long form of the game is still, and probably will always be, played in whites. The shortened, one day, version has been played in coloured clothing for years, basically since the Packer era introduced it. It’s all part of an attempt to try and attract new young fans to the game by trying to make it seem more exciting.
This last summer has seen a big increase in the profile of the game, and influx of new fans. However this was based on England and Australia playing the best series in living memory, and people realising the excitement and tension generated by a five day game slowly building up to a finish where any result is still possible right to the very end can’t be beaten. So much for the short cuts of the marketing men, sometimes I almost believe there is a God.

BTW, congratulations on being only the second North American in fifty posts in this thread who was intellectually curious enough to actually ask a question about something outside of their continent. You never know, we might actually talk about non-English language books on the forum one day.

*doesn't hold breath*

 

[RitalinKid]

This is a great thread, Kenny. It's nice to see people actually learning about the different ways of doing things.

You were asking earlier about why people don't just set up their own leagues because of the draft, and I think you really stumbled across it with the post about international play. Since our teams don't compete internationally, there's no reason to have teams that use money to attract all the best players. If all the best players were on a team here, league play would be boring. A lot of people hate the Yankees because they feel like the Yankees attempt to buy their team.

I have a question for you about the smaller leagues. See, we have minor leagues in baseball, but the NFL uses college teams as their field to pick fresh, young talent; now, they also have the World League, or whatever they're calling it, to groom young players, but college is the main source of draft picks. Did I understand you that each "big" club has smaller clubs in it's organization. That is, does it own these smaller clubs?

MLB teams own their minor league teams, but I would like to see it go a little further down. My Danish friend told me that club soccer in school there is private; you have to pay for your gear, fees, etc. Here in the states, the goverment pays for high school athletics, so athletic clubs are tied to schools. Do the professional teams there in England help support the lower levels of club sports? I think it would be interesting to see professional sports relieve the government of the responsibility to field teams. It might be in the best interest of everyone.

I would like to add to Novella's comment about baseball. Baseball is about technique (skill) and size. Make no mistake about it, those guys are huge, but you can't have only size. If you can't hit a baseball and you're not of decent stature, you could take all the steroids in the world and still be no good at baseball. In football, steroids (and work) can make you a decent player. Yes, you still have to be smart, but muscle size and power is a major advantage in football. At my high school, we sucked until we got a new coach that stressed attendance in the weight room; he also got us creatine.

I watched comedian Greg Giraldo and he said something to the affect of, "Here we are in a war with soaring gas prices, and Congress is worried about steroids in baseball. I don't give a **** about steroids in baseball. I have to pay $150 to get a jersey or a seat at a game; I don't care if all they grow a tails. Just get out there and play."

 

[Kenny Shovel]

This is a great thread, Kenny. It's nice to see people actually learning about the different ways of doing things.

I’ve always considered that one of the best aspects of this site is that it attracts posters from many different countries, but have often been puzzled that people don’t make better use of that diversity to explore differing opinions and experiences to their own. Perhaps readers aren’t as open minded and intellectually curious as I’d previously thought?

You were asking earlier about why people don't just set up their own leagues because of the draft, and I think you really stumbled across it with the post about international play. Since our teams don't compete internationally, there's no reason to have teams that use money to attract all the best players. If all the best players were on a team here, league play would be boring. A lot of people hate the Yankees because they feel like the Yankees attempt to buy their team.

‘Buying success’ is an accusation that is often thrown around in sport over here. Most notably of late is the case of Chelsea football club who have been bought by a Russian Billionaire who’s proceeded to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into buying the best players available. A similar thing may be happening in Scotland with a, I think, Lithuanian businessman who has bought a club there, although I’m not sure he has the same amount of money available to him.
The impression I got from previous posts in this thread was that North American sporting leagues had been set up with a less ‘market led’, more centrally controlled system, that had come up with a better way of ensuring a more even distribution of talent across the competing teams than happens in Europe. I found that quite ironic.

I have a question for you about the smaller leagues. See, we have minor leagues in baseball, but the NFL uses college teams as their field to pick fresh, young talent; now, they also have the World League, or whatever they're calling it, to groom young players, but college is the main source of draft picks. Did I understand you that each "big" club has smaller clubs in it's organization. That is, does it own these smaller clubs?

No, all clubs are within the umbrella of that sports administrative body. They are organised in a hierarchical manner with, in the case of soccer, four main leagues with promotion and relegation. I’m fairly certain that it’s against league rules for someone to own more than one club. However, it is possible to have a development agreement with a club in a different country, although these are still quite rare. The major clubs over here use the smaller clubs in different ways. They buy their best players and often loan younger or fringe players to smaller clubs to gain experience etc
North American collage teams are an interesting difference, as certainly in Britain this system of developing youth talent doesn’t really exist. Whilst schools all have their own representative sides at various sports, it’s more the job of local leagues and the clubs themselves to develop talent. Traditionally in soccer, scouts from clubs watch matches in local leagues to spot talent who can be brought in for a trail.

Do the professional teams there in England help support the lower levels of club sports?

Mmm, yes and no, but mostly no. The local league club will do a lot of what we call ‘community work’, trying to develop an interest in the sport and to provide players who will give coaching. But the non-professional leagues have their own organisations and pretty much run themselves; direction and support is provided by the sports administrative body.

I would like to add to Novella's comment about baseball. Baseball is about technique (skill) and size. Make no mistake about it, those guys are huge, but you can't have only size. If you can't hit a baseball and you're not of decent stature, you could take all the steroids in the world and still be no good at baseball.

So are there any slimly built hitters out there, or do players except that building yourself up in the gym is part of their profession?
In contrast batting in cricket is not so reliant on power as it is on timing and skill; for every batsman who’s built like a brick shithouse and can hit the ball clean out of the stadium there is a slimly built player who can time the ball and place his shots to avoid the fielders. Both can score equally as well, and as fast. This is probably the reason that cricket became so popular on the Indian sub-continent, where as other British introduced sports like soccer and rugby didn’t.

 

[RitalinKid]

Rugby. Great sport. I played here for a semester until my ankle got hurt and later found out that I have degenerative discs in my back.

Anyway, batting in baseball is all about timing and technique. There's footwork, watching the ball to the bat, rolling the wrist at the right moment, twisting the hips, and the list goes on. You can be slim and still be a good hitter. A player can still place the ball where he wants and make good contact, but a power hitter (homeruns) require strength.

I was told that one player used steroids and gained a lot of muscle mass in his chest. Supposedly, it slowed his bat speed down and actually made his batting worse.

To get to your question, most athletes, football, baseball, whatever, accept weight training as necessary. Even Laird Hamilton, possibly the best surfer ever, does weight training. He said that it made a huge difference in his surfing.

Back to buying teams, see the stakes are higher in European football because not only are the teams competing, but the countries are competing, so buying teams may seem necessary and justified. Here the quality of the competition inside the national leagues is more important, so our system was set up for that. It's not that either one is better; it's just two different situations.

What do you think about the idea that rich clubs or leagues should spread their wealth by supporting the youth teams? They get players out of the deal, and the sport supports itself from its professional league play and merchandising.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Rugby. Great sport. I played here for a semester…

As you probably know, there are two versions or codes of rugby, league and union. I’d guess that you would have played the fifteen man version ‘Rugby Union’.

Anyway, batting in baseball is all about timing and technique. There's footwork, watching the ball to the bat, rolling the wrist at the right moment, twisting the hips, and the list goes on. You can be slim and still be a good hitter. A player can still place the ball where he wants and make good contact, but a power hitter (homeruns) require strength.

Ok, that’s interesting. I suspect there is far more to batting technique in cricket, due to the differing varieties of shot played, both attaching and defensive, range of differing bowling (pitching) styles and differing pitch conditions. However it looks like there is more to baseball hitting then first meets the eye.
Without much knowledge of the game it looks like each batsman tries to hit a home run every ball and there is little control over the exact direction of shot. But can I take it from what you say that batsmen can place were their shots are going? Also are there some batsman who aren’t renowned big hitters and rely on placing shots between fielders to steal and load the bases? Or would that be a specific tactic dependant on the state of the match?

Back to buying teams, see the stakes are higher in European football because not only are the teams competing, but the countries are competing, so buying teams may seem necessary and justified.

I don’t think that really comes into play. The desire to do well comes from wanting success and the monetary reward that comes from it. At club level there is no more incentive to win then there is in North America.

Here the quality of the competition inside the national leagues is more important, so our system was set up for that. It's not that either one is better; it's just two different situations.

I’d disagree here and say that your system is better for getting a level playing field. I’m interested in how that happened, whether it was by accident or design.

What do you think about the idea that rich clubs or leagues should spread their wealth by supporting the youth teams? They get players out of the deal, and the sport supports itself from its professional league play and merchandising.

Over here clubs do what they think is in their best interest, that may be the same as the best interest of the sport and it may not. All soccer clubs for example run youth teams, but aren’t involved all that deeply in the wider development of the game. But to be fair, over here that is the job of the sports association, so in soccer the job of developing the game is down to the FA (football association).

 

[RitalinKid]

Without much knowledge of the game it looks like each batsman tries to hit a home run every ball and there is little control over the exact direction of shot. But can I take it from what you say that batsmen can place were their shots are going? Also are there some batsman who aren’t renowned big hitters and rely on placing shots between fielders to steal and load the bases? Or would that be a specific tactic dependant on the state of the match?

A good batter can have some control of where the ball goes, and there are some guys that are good at just getting a hit while others are known for knocking the ball out of the park.

Back to buying teams, see the stakes are higher in European football because not only are the teams competing, but the countries are competing, so buying teams may seem necessary and justified.

I don’t think that really comes into play. The desire to do well comes from wanting success and the monetary reward that comes from it. At club level there is no more incentive to win then there is in North America.

Okay, if England had a draft system like the US National sports and England had to compete with the rest of Europe who uses the current system, what would happen? England would never win because the talent would spread out over the English system. The European system is beneficial for international competition; it ensures that the team that represents your country is as stocked as possible with talent. If the US national league champions were playing in international competition, you'd probably see our leagues do the same because no one likes to lose, especially at an international level.

Here the quality of the competition inside the national leagues is more important, so our system was set up for that. It's not that either one is better; it's just two different situations.

I’d disagree here and say that your system is better for getting a level playing field. I’m interested in how that happened, whether it was by accident or design.

Here, you're actually agreeing with me. We're increasing the level of competition by leveling the playing field. Each team can only spend the same amount of money; the worst team gets first pick. In NASCAR, they actually restrict the cars in different to make them as equal as possible.

Now, I do see how this is funny because Americans like to think of themselves as true believers in the religion of free market, but here we are restricting everybody.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

A good batter can have some control of where the ball goes, and there are some guys that are good at just getting a hit while others are known for knocking the ball out of the park.

I see. One of the fundamental differences between the two games is that the cricket bat has a flat surface, giving the batsman far greater control, and moving the difficulty away from scoring runs towards getting the player out.

Okay, if England had a draft system like the US National sports and England had to compete with the rest of Europe who uses the current system, what would happen? England would never win because the talent would spread out over the English system.

I’m with you now. When you were talking about International competition I was thinking about England internationals and couldn’t see the relevance, but you mean when English clubs compete in the two European wide competitions. Yes, for that you would need all European nations to have the same system. But anyway, the system we have is too well ingrained now, and however evenly you spread the home-grown talent, players bought from abroad would cancel out that benefit anyway.

Here, you're actually agreeing with me.

Yeah, I see what you’re saying now.

Now, I do see how this is funny because Americans like to think of themselves as true believers in the religion of free market, but here we are restricting everybody.

Yup, that’s what I mean. Whilst the true market force driven sport is found in Europe, home of ‘Big Government’. Although it’s also home to Adam Smith and the Dutch East India Company.