I’ve read that one of the reasons that professional wrestling came to be predetermined was that by the 1920s, the top-tier wrestlers in America were so evenly matched that championship fights would drag on for hours without a single fall, with one infamous bout going six hours before ending as a draw on account of darkness, so it was decided for the sake of entertainment, profitability, and the wrestlers’ health that eventually someone needed to take a dive.
On the other hand, some of the most entertaining modern wrestling matches I’ve ever seen were “Broadways” where the competitors fought to a 60-minute time limit draw.
How does this account for how the leagues are set up? Let’s look at soccer for instance. In most soccer leagues around the world, there is a system of promotion and relegation. There are no salary caps. The most successful teams spend (and make) much greater than other teams. You have leagues (cough Bundesliga) where one team has won the Championship many years in a row.
American sports leagues are obsessed with parity. There are salary caps, a draft, playoffs, intense revenue sharing. The leagues are set up in a way that everyone has a relatively even shot in terms of financial capabilities.
No non-American soccer league has a salary cap (and FFP doesn’t count). Few have playoffs (and mostly in the Americas).
So in that regard, the fundamental purpose for American sports leagues are for even contests whereas the fundamental purpose for non-American sports leagues are for the best teams to show their dominance.
It…depends. Are both teams taking 20 shots on goal but the goalkeepers are turning in a world-class performance? Okay, I’ll watch that.
Are they both just kicking around lazily, not even trying to score, or bumbling about terribly on offense? I’d rather watch recent Pixar movies than that.
Makes absolutely no account of that, 'cause that wasn’t the OP.
Agree that a lot of leagues e.g. SPFL where the constituent teams are far from parity over many seasons.
Remind me again, what is the Yankees payroll? Much over USD200mil now?
But that is not the OP.
This is not correct, especially if you consider football outside Europe.
I’ll conceded the question on whether clubs adhere to the salary cap.
Also yes, soccer leagues tend to run “Championships” but they also run knock-out competitions and the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and the UEFA Europa Conference League are all play-offs or finals leagues as indeed is the FIFA World Cup
But again, that is not the OP
According to Sportrac.com, the Yankees are at $250.5 million. Good enough for the 3rd highest payroll.
Still, the luxury tax is a soft ceiling for MLB, not a cap, so teams will try to spend under the tax thresholds.
($147 million is league average, and Baltimore is lowest at $45 million)
The NFL, NHL, and NBA all have salary caps, though. Not sure about pairity. (AIUI caps are used to keep the owners from spending more money than balance. As does the luxury tax of MLB.)
Well neither was ties vs. wins. That ties vs. wins conversation has absolutely nothing to do with lower scoring vs. higher scoring game outcomes.
Remind me again, when was the last time the Yankees won the World Series? 2009 was it?
Yankees haven’t been the highest spending club in a little while (it’s been the Dodgers recently), and the luxury tax is kind of a soft cap.
Those are all outside of the league structure. In American sports the playoffs are how you crown your league champion. For example, last year’s World Series winner was the Atlanta Braves. They also finished with the 12th best record in MLB (granted unbalanced schedules) and had the worst record for a division winner.
In a traditional European soccer, the San Francisco Giants, who had the best record in baseball with a 107-55 record would have been champions and the Braves with an 88-73 record may have had an opportunity to win a Cup that ran coterminous with the season.
Basketball has high scoring, and you get a bunch of points for doing most things in football. The premise Americans prefer higher scores is possible but dubious. If it was true, it would say nothing about the premises of non-Americans. If this includes Canadians, who are similar but often dislike the comparison, hockey is a low scoring game, as is curling.
I am a fan of soccer. The actual score very often fails to reflect the number of good chances and how competitive or entertaining the game actually was. To a greater degree than, say, basketball.
Hockey is nothing like soccer on ice. Sure, both have goals and goalies and passing - like many sports. Baseball and basketball both use balls and involve running.
For clarification, I’m not asking about whether non-Americans prefer higher-scoring games, but rather, higher-scoring outcomes.
That is to say, where one sport is concerned - let’s say, hockey - whether Americans would prefer hockey end up being a 7-6 finish while non-Americans would want it 2-1. Or if it’s basketball, whether Americans would want 130-120 while non-Americans would want 80-70.
Oh, in that case, no. Plenty of Americans like a pitcher’s duel (I just went to a baseball game last night which was 3-0 and we had a great time) or a hard fought defensive American football game. Lots of basketball fans lament that rule changes have gotten too pro-offensive side of the game.
After the 1990 FIFA World Cup, which was characterized by boring, low-scoring games, the soccer powers that be tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring - giving three points in tournament play for a win instead of two, and instituting the back pass rule.
Right, it’s hard to get excited about any scoring play when teams are routinely putting 130 or more points on the board.
People want to see a competitive game. The score depends somewhat on what is being played. A 0-0 soccer game may or may not be thrilling, but a 47-46 basketball game is unlikely to be entertaining. I do not think the premise is true. I don’t take myself too seriously so do what you want with my suggestions.