This is true, and the fact that the Packers are still located in Green Bay is the direct result of that ownership structure (which was originally set up in the 1920s, soon after the team was formed). The NFL’s current rules specifically disallow this kind of ownership structure today; the Packers have been allowed to continue with this sort of ownership because it had been created long before the NFL began instituting more strict rules about franchise ownership (which, yes, means that the other 31 teams are, in effect, owned by “1 rich guy”).
Well, we can’t have the fans having a say in how things are run, can we? Fans are (US) clubs’ sheep to be sheared, cows to be milked. And if you don’t give enough wool or milk, we’ll pack up and move “my” franchise to another town.
How do the Packers determine who sits on the governing board of management?
Pretty much the same way that most other publicly-held companies do. The team’s management proposes candidates for seats on the board of directors, and shareholders vote yay or nay on those candidates through proxy ballots.
I don’t think you understand the US system at all. The NFL equivalent to the Blackburn Rovers would be one of any number of small market teams. Green Bay, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh. Each of these teams has an equal opportunity to compete every single year, and win regularly, without an out-sized effort from some crazy billionaire. That’s essentially the definition of egalitarianism. What you’re advocating for is better described as Laissez-faire capitalism which has never once proven itself to actually be egalitarian.
It doesn’t, but I’m guessing you already know that.
The point that was being made is that, compared to the EPL, there is far more of a level playing field among the teams in the NFL, due to the salary cap and revenue sharing.
Your point seems to be that the NFL (or other major North American sports) are, on their face, not egalatarian, because there is no system by which a team at a lower level of play can “earn” its way into the NFL.
It’s a set of trade offs. We have 32 teams with a very fair chance to win it all in the next 2-3 years. Expansion is possible but rare and requires the assent of the other 32. EPL has maybe 3-4 teams with a real chance to win in the next 2-3 years, but hey, if you want to buy your way into the discussion you can work up through the lower leagues. I’ll take our limited meritocracy over the English class system.
I saw it, I’m emphasising the point that there is no ladder to the top tier of competition based on merit alone.
So the competition is open to everyone unless the current incumbents say it isn’t?
Yes, you can work your way to the top table with no membership barrier to doing so. There is no guarantee of the title and perhaps only 6 current teams stand a realistic chance in the near future but then topping the league in the EPL is not the only reward on offer and not the only measure of success.
Call it a meritocracy if you like but your “meritocracy” seems to involve a gentlemen’s club that decides who can join and that can veto membership at will and places a billion-dollar plus entry fee to even play. Sounds far more like a class system than anything we have in the EPL. I don’t dispute that one can engineer a equal playing field within a closed shop of limited membership but such a set-up is not particularly egalitarian for anyone outside that membership wishing to compete.
“of course this an egalitarian set-up, and access is open to absolutely anyone who is prepared to stump up a billion dollars and wait until we let you play”
It’s not arbitrary. There are 32 teams divided into 2 conferences of 16 teams each. Each conference has 4 divisions of 4 teams.
Throw in a 33rd team and suddenly that whole structure falls apart.
I suppose you could have a lower tier of teams outside of those 32 and have those teams earn a spot into the top tier to compete. The problem is, where are those teams coming from? Where do they play? Every professional American football league aside from the NFL fails. The AAF last year tried working as a lower-tier football league that let in players rejected by the NFL to play, and could have been such a league. But it went bankrupt before finishing its first season. You’re complaining about the NFL not being inclusive of teams that don’t exist.
I wasn’t arguing about that I was emphasising it again because I think that, for the reasons I stated, the set-up of football in Europe and the UK is more open and more egalitarian than the NFL.
You don’t, for the reasons you stated…I’m “arguing” to the exactly the same extent as you are but it is hardly worthy of the label.
How would allowing promotion make teams magically appear?
What does that have to do with money? They failed because they couldn’t make enough money.
And how are teams supposed to make money? Are you expecting teams to collect government subsidies?
I guess here’s the big question… What problem would be fixed by the NFL developing a system of promotion/delegation, and what would they gain by doing so?
I suggest that if a pathway of promotion and relegation led transparently from lower tiers to the highest tier of the NFL then teams would indeed appear through the magic of economics and the desire for sporting and financial success. How could they fail to appear?
If the AAF was not part of a system of relegation and promotion then it has nothing to do with the point I’m making.
Teams make money by being popular, selling tickets, sponsorship and merchandise. I’m not sure what your question has to do with the point I made.
who is arguing that there is a problem to be fixed? The teams and team owners within the current NFL I’m sure are very happy with their closed-shop boys club with stratospheric entry fee, arbitrary entrance criteria and restrictive work practices. I am suggesting that calling it “egalitarian” is only true for a very narrow definition of that word.
It’s only narrow to someone who doesn’t understand how American football works. Or American sports in general. Promotion/relegation looks like insanity to an American.
US soccer major league has looked into relegation/promotion but nothing has come of it.
NBA and NFL are happy with their free “amateur” minor leagues AKA college sports. NBA does have a minor league that is fairly new but they don’t get many players from that league.
MLB and NHL have professional minor leagues but there is no promotion/relegation. NHL also gets many players from the Canadian junior system which is technically amateur but the players get a stipend. Most guys go from Canadian junior hockey to the minor hockey league but the really best players can go direct from junior to the NHL at age 18 or 19. and the NHL also gets guys from Europe .
Well you haven’t told me anything that I didn’t already know. I know how both systems work, there are pros and cons for each and that allows me to come to an opinion on that, I’m happy to back it up and have done.
But here’s a thought experiment.
Imagine that the current top 32 tennis players decided to break away from the main tour. They only play themselves. they don’t allow any other player to join them, no matter how good, unless an opening occurs and all 32 agree to the application. If another player is allowed to join they have to pay $50 million to do so. Now they do institute a handicapping system based on past performance and it means that there is a greater spread of tournament winners amongst those 32.
Would you champion such an endeavour as “egalitarian”?
That’s only a interesting comparison if you include a system where the players do an annual recruiting of the best limbs from college tennis players, and trade limbs between themselves.
Manchester United was bought by an American. The locals there were so unhappy about that they started a new semi pro soccer team ,FC United of Manchester, at very low level that they hope can eventually make it up to the Premier league.
I think we both know that you don’t have to try and muddy the waters to see where the hypothetical takes you…or lets go with your wacky suggestion and say that they do have a system as you describe, would you describe that set-up it as “egalitarian”?
I’m treating the concept of a “team” as single unit, if it helps merely swap out the single tennis player for any other team sport of your choice. Include the equivalent of a draft if you wish. The point remains that you are setting up a closed-shop, no guaranteed access, restrictive employment practices and a high barrier to entry through cost and arbitrary veto. You end up with fewer employment opportunities for those athletes and sporting professionals so inclined.
Again, this isn’t a value judgement. A private company can put in place such protectionist measures allowed by law to preserve what it sees as important to itself. For the NFL this means, keep it small, keep it exclusive, keep it lucrative for the few, level the playing field, mix up the winners, control the players. That how they choose to do things. That is how they choose to engineer their product. I’m surprised that anyone acknowledging those facts could seriously choose to describe such a set-up as “egalitarian”
See, I really love F1, I would never choose to describe it in that way either and so I’m clearly not drawing a direct line from “not egalitarian” to “a bad thing”. I also love football and the fact that the lowliest club in the land can indeed end up on the same pitch as the European champions though no other requirement other than being good enough. That is something that I would call “egalitarian” (but I wouldn’t choose to use that word I don’t think, I’d be more likely to say it gave equal opportunities and access)
