Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

Wasn't Allianz Arena in Munich created with public funds approved by a voter referendum? I seem to remember reading that on UEFA's site when Munich hosted the Champions League final.

forkboy84 posted:

It's odd that America has socialism for sports and capitalism for vital services like healthcare, while Europe goes for capitalism for sports & lots of state intervention in important things like health.

Nah, we don't have socialism in sports either, at least not in a way that benefits everyone involved. Pro sports leagues are cartels where the owners get the lion's share of the money, and that's true across the board even though labor (the players) is stronger in MLB than in the NFL, which blowhard pundits constantly say is an "owner's league" like that's a good thing. The reason why Gary Bettman has been the NHL commissioner for over two decades is because he's very good at creating money for the owners. However, he's never averted a work stoppage after the CBA expired in his career and continues to be an idiot with bad ideas like the World Cup of Hockey, which is currently being played in the middle of the end of the baseball regular season and the beginning of the NFL season- in other words, he is objectively terrible at most of what his job entails. But since he's good at having the owners get more money, that's all that counts.

Also, these cartels hardly ever open their doors to anyone, and you better make sure that you provide it with money if you want in. When the Las Vegas team in the NHL starts up next year, that will have been the first expansion team in the four major professional sports leagues in 13 years. Any league that tries to challenge the status quo is eventually defeated with their best teams absorbed- the All-American Football Conference was founded in 1946 because the NFL's owners didn't want to expand, and they ended up folding in 5 years with the Browns and 49ers joining the league (today's Indianapolis Colts are the second incarnation of the Baltimore Colts- the first team joined the other two but folded one year later). The same story happened with the ABA/NBA and the WHA/NHL- both smaller leagues made noise for a few seasons, couldn't sustain the momentum, and folded with four of their teams being absorbed by the bigger league.

The original formation of clubs on your side of the Atlantic was far more socialistic, even if they're owned by Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern oil barons, and Thai billionaires today.

get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Sep 26, 2016

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 06:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:24

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

Antti posted:

"Socialism" in American sports is a bit reductive, I assume they meant stuff like the draft where teams get to pick instead of having to compete, and players having strong collective bargaining. In Europe collective bargaining is meant for people earning pennies, not millions.

How effective are players' unions in Europe at combating management? Players' unions vary in strength here (it's more or less a formality in the NFL but is quite strong in MLB and the NHL) but are all seen as important to the functioning of the game. On the other hand, the only time I heard of any kind of labor unrest over there was a potential work stoppage in La Liga in Spain, which has its fair share of clubs teetering on the edge of a cliff financially. Even though socialism in North American sports isn't as strong as some make it out to be, the labor/management struggle is very much alive and well, and you can't say that about other industries. I can't speak for Canada which always hitches its wagon to American sports leagues, but I can definitely say that about the US.

Pluskut Tukker posted:

(the Red Bull company seems to be trying to create franchises, but everybody hates them)

We've got one of them here too. I hope this isn't a permanent sponsorship, because they will always be the MetroStars to me and a lot of other fans. It's the nature of the beast in soccer to have shirt sponsors, but it just doesn't come naturally to us to have it in other sports, namely because of poo poo like this (this arrangement only lasted one season but the Red Wings must never, ever live it down).

AAPsel posted:

Football clubs are a business and I don't know many businesses where alienating your core customers seems like a good idea.

Sports teams are a business here too, but that's never stopped them from moving and setting up shop elsewhere. The Rams returning to LA after 20 years in St. Louis is just one chapter of a very long book on greedy owners doing this. But as people have said, clubs are more entrenched in a local community than they are here.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 23:37

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:

players can gently caress off all over Europe for similar money if they don't like it where they're playing at the time

That actually explains things nicely. It's much easier to have labor unrest in the North American leagues that are the undisputed best in the world, since you gotta pay them like such. Sure, some players went to the KHL in the last lockout and a couple of players have actually transferred to that league while they still have years left, but let's not pretend it's on the level of the NHL.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 18:17

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

OP, you should definitely look into West Ham United in the Premier League. They're a London club and they still play in the city, but they play in what was the 2012 Olympic Stadium, which isn't part of their former neighborhood. There was plenty of political controversy surrounding the move. I'm not sure what it was about exactly, but I know that there was public money involved.

The most telling part of their move is that they changed their logo once they settled in to their new home. Since 1903, West Ham's club logo included the Boleyn Castle AKA the Green Street House, which is a landmark building in their old neighborhood. The old stadium that they moved from last year was even called Boleyn Ground. Here's the last incarnation of that logo.

This is their current logo. It's been stripped of its old local identity in addition to looking generic as hell (as well as the complaint this guy has).

https://twitter.com/_SamAlex/status/765286416632913921/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

As for their on-the-field product, they're doing horribly so far.

Jarmak posted:

the Winnipeg Jets moving to Phoenix (!).

Hey, this nonsensical relocation and they hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by the city of Glendale, Arizona to sustain it was completely worth it because it produced Auston Matthews, a product of the Phoenix metro area. :colbert:

get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Sep 28, 2016

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 22:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?