THIS, absolutely in spades!!! And what is more, they make these $billions on the back of a season that is only four months long, and where the maximum number of games any team can play is 21!!!
If we want the game to grow globally so that more countries play the game and more countries are capable of beating bigger teams more often, then the EPL/UEFA model of three or four rich clubs and hundreds of poor ones is NOT the way forward, and that is point I have been trying to make, that Jim, Prestwick and others have completely missed. The fact that few teams win the EPL isn't the problem, its simply indicative of the problem; the problem of vested interests such as club owners failing to understand the need to grow the game.
Now, do I want my club to grow and have a bigger piece of a small pie, or do I want my club to be part of a drive to make a bigger pie so that everyone has a bigger piece? Which is better for the game? The tribalist club system supporters fail to understand this. ZeFrenchie says "RC Toulon represents RC Toulon, they don't represent France and there is no reason why they should care to develop players for the French national team". I say that is a selfish & small-minded attitude to take, and will not lead to the growth of the game overall; it works against the creation of a bigger pie.
And how do we create a bigger pie?
Well, we can start by clubs competing against each other only on the field, but competing against other football codes and other forms of "sportainment" in the board-rooms! It should not be "how can I make my club bigger and better?"; it should be "how can I make the whole of rugby bigger and better?"
If you can achieve the latter, the former will follow automatically.
Anyway, I'd love to stay and chat, but the AFC Wildcard game (Kansas City v Indianapolis) is about to start.
The whole NFL/North American franchising example is all well and good and sounds fantastic. But it isn't perfect. Far from it. While the NFL makes billions the fact remains that College Football - with many many more teams, more traditional rivalries and more factionalism and frankly has the same selfish naked self interest which you apparently despise in European club sport - is more popular, has more airtime on television and gets more promotion.
Basically a sport that can attract a Mel Brooks look-a-like to its prime time "College Game Day" TV programming instantly has more street cred than anything on the planet
College sports (football and basketball especially) are so insanely popular that you have the peculiar occurrence of smaller colleges inviting the bigger giants to come along and pummel them simply to collect a big payday in TV and sponsorship revenue.
Jobbing is lucrative in College sports.
All of this leaves the NFL, within America at least, a much maligned little brother. College football has the bigger gates (Michigan averages 111,000 a game and Penn State 109,000 in 2007), the bigger, more committed fanbases and actually more coverage in parts of the media. You could say College Football is Union in New Zealand while the NFL is League
And the reason for this success? Teams and rivalries with decades, even over a century of history which leads to legions of committed fans far more fanatical than any
franchise could ever hope to have.
Its the
very tribalism that you hate that makes College Football the most watched and lucrative forms of sport entertainment in America.
And for all the so called lovey dovey, friendly fraternal brotherhood "how can I make the whole of *insert sport here* bigger and better" crap, the NFL and its owners can be as selfish as any European club owner.
Who said the NFL doesn't like capitalism? Its that very greed which causes them to take teams from their traditional fanbases and move them around!
Do you wonder why LA haven't got a team? Because the NFL took the Raiders away from them. And before that the NFL took them away from Oakland to move them to LA. So thats two sets of communities, two sets of
fans frankly messed around and made to look stupid while the people who run the game in America keep pushing the teams around the country trying to make the biggest buck possible. They try and wring the most $$$ out of city and state governments and then screw them over if the returns don't meet their expectations.
And as for hockey, why don't you go to Quebec City and ask them about the Nordiques and how they were taken away from them and moved
out of the bloody country to DENVER because they weren't making enough money. Obviously for the good of the game, eh?
And why isn't there an international form of American Football? Because the NFL would never allow the player release to make it meaningful and worthwhile. The whole franchise system revolves around making the
league, not the sport as a whole, the league as big as it can be and make as much money as possible.
Interestingly, MLS is slowly going that way as well. Gradually becoming more insular as it finds that it has a big enough market at home to tap and doesn't need to worry about things like regional competitions.
I understood the point you were trying to make - that a small number of teams winning the same thing over and over again is indicative of a larger problem - but you missed my points:
1. The Super 15 isn't exactly a championship winning bonanza itself for all 15 teams.
2. The fact that you're a Crusaders fan kind of leads me to believe that your team following clouds your judgement and that if you were, say, a Western Force fan or a Golden Lions fan perhaps, you'd have a rather less rosy view of the supposed superiority of the Super 15 over European competitions.
I think all competitions mentioned here - the AP, T14, S15, American franchising - have their merits but they also have their deficiencies. Of course they do.
I think the real reason why you don't "get" NH Club rugby is probably the same reason why I don't "get" SH franchise rugby or North American sports franchises: its thousands of miles away from you, what you're used to and you can't relate to those teams you know little about. I have no intention of picking a favourite team in the Super 15 because I have no idea about their histories, where they come from, their fans. Nothing.
I tried following the Canadiens in Hockey but they're too far away, their games are late at night and I can't really relate to them. Ditto any NFL team to be honest.
I follow Saracens because they're my local team, I can relate to them as a
PROPER RUGBY CLUB (
) and their traditions and history. They have gimmicks, etc but there isn't anything wrong in giving free entry to those in fancy dress, etc. I feel I belong at Sarries and I know where they've come from.
I wouldn't be able to do that with some plastic franchise suddenly created out of nowhere. I'm sure Welsh rugby fans wouldn't be able to relate to the WRU's proposed franchises if the Regions walk out and join the Aviva Premiership.
Ireland's teams may be Union controlled franchises but they're really Provinces with history and traditions all of which commands respect and adoration from their fans. Adoration which wouldn't be forthcoming if the IRFU dumped all of that and created the "Cork Cannonballs" or the "Dublin Ducks" or whatever the crap.
I like my club rugby just fine, thank you very much and nothing is going to change that.
