It almost is like what the MLS used to be at founding (there were basically three owners - Lamar Hunt, Phil Anschutz, and Robert Kraft. Hunt and Anschutz owned numerous teams. Only after the league started to grow did they sell off teams, while keeping one for themselves (Hunt picked Kansas City and Anschutz picked Los Angeles).
This was, really, a way to absorb ridiculous amount of losses without having owners drop left and right from the league. Hunt and Anschutz lost tons of money building the league.
Oh, I wasn’t defending it, I was just pointing out that cash reserves don’t necessarily translate as directly into good teams like it seems to in European soccer, because the success of a team isn’t *directly *dependent on cash.
That said, a lot of the things that high performance depend on are related to cash- it’s why UT has been perennially pretty good, and why until recently Baylor was so abysmal. It’s why Alabama’s good, and why most non Power-5 conference teams aren’t even in the running.
But among the Power-5 conferences, cash isn’t always the defining variable.
I didn’t read your initial post closely enough and went way off track. Sorry. But where is anyone gravitating to the MLS model?
And one more return to the competitiveness problem in big league soccer (not MLS): isn’t having no salary cap much more of a factor than promotion/relegation?
I didn’t read your initial post closely enough and went way off track. Sorry. But where is anyone gravitating to the MLS model?
And one more return to the competitiveness problem in big league soccer (not MLS): isn’t having no salary cap and less revenue sharing much larger factors than promotion/relegation?