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?

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

radmonger posted:

Various secondary things, but probably fundamentally supply and demand. In the UK there are 92 teams in the top 4 leagues, and only 75 or so towns with a population of greater than 150,000. Even with the biggest cities supporting 3+ teams, the smallest ones left don't have the market there.

The only really sizable city without a football team, Milton Keynes (pop 250,000), did eventually, after much controversy, persuade a club to move in. Whereas there are a _lot_ of US cities around the 1/4 million size that have everything a resident might want except a major sports franchise.

This is the reason right here, European clubs don't have the bargaining power to do it, not this bullshit about Europe's superior community-based sporting culture.

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.

Makes you think.

Using the free market to force the local government to bid for your services against other local governments is not any definition of socialism I'm aware of.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 14:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 03:06

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Using the free market on a product which you as a group have monopolized through a cartel.

Yes private cartels, an element of socialism.

I know you really wanted to get that great zinger in but "unfettered capitalism that has destroyed the free market" is not an argument for it being socialism.

HorseLord posted:

I'm trying to conceive of how a football team could even move. Liverpool, right, their big thing is that they're from liverpool. They'd become what, the cardiff liverpools? how would that work? Anywhere to move to already has a team or two, and the fans aren't going to follow. Why would you convert a billion pound major team into a poo poo one that's located in the middle of nowhere, has no heritage and no fans? How would the liverpoolness be kept in? Talent scout in liverpool and go "hey 18 year old kid, want to move 100 miles away where you know nobody?"

Said every fan of every long time US sports franchise ever right before the move was finalized.

Though to be fair, it's usually not the league's marquee teams that move, it's the ones that are struggling.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 20:47

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

steinrokkan posted:

Uh

European soccer teams usually have one town where they are popular. Sometimes even less, like there's one traditional city district where all their real fans live. Moving the team would be in effect the same as dissolving it and starting a completely different team somewhere else.

In comparison this is what the distribution of football fans looks like in the us

A bit more leeway, isn't there

That map clearly explains the LA Rams moving to St. Louis (and back), the Minnesota Northstars moving to Dallas, and the Winnipeg Jets moving to Phoenix (!).

Actually off the top of my head I can't think of a single major franchise that has ever moved within the bounds of that map.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 16:12

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