AFC Wimbledon did something similar and have had even more success.
That new team was founded because the previous Wimbeldon team was moved about 50 miles away.
Yes but the point was that disaffected fans were free to set up their team, not that the reasons behind it were the same.
ETA - actually I think I misinterpreted your comment. I think you were adding detail rather than nitpicking! I’m somewhat distracted by the tennis to be honest
It’s a different view of what’s “egalitarian” about it, that’s all.
Your complaint seems to be that there’s no mechanism for a smaller team to break into the NFL, and that, by its nature, is unfair and inegalitarian. The issue is that there really aren’t such smaller teams at the professional level Amercian football.
In the history of the NFL, there are at least two examples of the league bringing in multiple teams from rival leagues. That said, those occurred decades ago – the big two examples are the NFL bringing in the more successful teams from the AAFC in 1950, then merging completely with the AFL in 1970.
Fans of pro football in the US are NFL fans – nearly all of them have a favorite team. If you live in a city that doesn’t have a team, you probably either follow the team that’s closest to where you live, or you adopt some other team as your own. If you live in, say, Rapid City, SD, which doesn’t have an NFL team, you might be a Vikings fan or a Broncos fan (since those are the closest teams, geographically).
And, from the standpoint of the fans, the league is reasonably egalitatian. Revenue is fairly equally shared across the teams, free agency and the draft mean that a team that’s lousy today doesn’t have to be lousy for very long. Out of the 32 teams in the NFL, only four (Cleveland, Detroit, Jacksonville, and Houston) have never been to the Super Bowl, and 20 different teams have won the Super bowl at least once.
That said, some teams (such as Cleveland and Detroit) seem to be perpetual cellar-dwellers, with long-suffering fans, but that’s more the result of poor managerial decisions than it is from some fundamental, baked-in inequity between the teams.
And that is the standpoint by which one can view the NFL as egalitarian. But, you’re right, if by “egalitarian,” you specifically mean, “I can form a local team and get into the NFL and win a Super Bowl,” then, no, it isn’t.
You also can’t join the NFL as a woman (though I’ve heard interesting discussions about the possibility of a talented kicker making it in), and that’s not a “rule” as far as I know but because the NFL is the elite of the elite in that sport and there hasn’t been a woman yet who’d make the cut (so to speak). You could argue that disparity isn’t egalitarian.
Only 12 teams get to the postseason. That’s not egalitarian if you don’t let them all play.
We can expand egalitarianism all we want but when you don’t narrow it, the argument gets a bit silly.
not a “complaint” and not even a criticism, merely an observation. And yes, to apply the term “egalitarian” to such a set-up seems to be stretching the word to breaking point. Somewhere akin to “national socialism” 
And yes, exactly right, it is a very different usage of the word indeed.
Chicken and egg. There are hardly likely to be lots of semi-pro outfits gearing themselves up for an opportunity that’ll never arrive under the current structure. Using a lack of such teams as a justification for the current structure seems somewhat circular.
No point getting into a definition war but the first I find is…
And OK, I’ll admit that one can use that to refer to the NFL set-up but I’d say it was a very squint-eyed, “animal farm” type usage of equality and opportunity.
By that definition, no sporting event is egalitarian. In which case any discussion is moot. Sports are the opposite of egalitarianism; the purpose is to determine which athlete/team is superior. The only way to have a meaningful discussion is to narrow the scope of what is meant by egalitarian.
In the NFL, egalitarianism is established by rules that work to establish parity between existing teams. Salary caps try to ensure that teams can’t outspend each other to victory. If Team B wants to lure away Team A’s best player, then Team B needs to offer a lot of money, which reduces the amount they can pay other players on the team, and in that sense they are making a sacrifice. You might have a few superstars on your roster but if the rest of your team isn’t very good you might suffer.
When drafting rookie players between seasons, the team with the worst records get to pick before the teams with the best records. That helps bad teams get better and prevents already good teams from getting too much of an edge over others.
It’s far from perfect but you have few teams that are dominant for very long. Mismanagement and other mistakes can still cause a team to be a constant failure, and having great management can allow a team to be a constant winner, but those are outliers. Most of the teams vary from year to year and keep it interesting.
As opposed to something like, say, European football, where if I understand correctly you can effectively buy the best team and destroy everyone else if you have the most money. Egalitarianism is established because anyone with enough money can make their own team and stock it with the best players money can buy and win.
So on one hand there is a league that can win with great coaching and savvy talent scouting. Another league allows winning to whoever has the most money. And that second league is more egalitarian?
Apparently because, in that second league, Upper Whinging FC, playing at the fifth level of English football, can, in theory, keep advancing up to higher and higher levels of play if they play well enough. And, thus, they could, possibly, get promoted all the way up to the Premier League. And, once they’re in the Premier League, they have a chance (even if it’s an exceptionally small one) to win it.
Or, in other words, “so, you’re saying that there’s a chance, then?”
That’s the gist of it yes. As opposed to “these are the only teams that will ever even be allowed the chance to try”
It isn’t really an “in theory” situation. Leicester City were at the third level not too long ago. Wimbledon won the FA cup in 1986 and were in the fifth tier of the league until 1977. There are various incidents of teams going down to the fourth tier and up to the Premier league again. Opportunities exist every year for teams at all levels to meet, and sometimes beat, the best teams in Europe on equal terms and succeed or fail on their sporting ability. No barriers. In the NFL there is absolutely no chance of it ever happening because it is structured so as to prevent it. No fairytales possible.
So then, theoretical egalitarianism that might happen on very rare occasions is real egalitarianism. A constant effort to maintain parity isn’t.
:eek:
I disagree. A sporting event that is fully open to anyone who wants to play seems pretty egalitarian to me. Each player is treated equally and all have equal opportunity. The Open Golf is on next week and that is open…literally, to pretty much any golfer who is able to play well enough.
The FA cup is open to every registered football club in England and you go as far as your talent takes you.
Maintaining parity amongst a ring-fenced group that others aren’t allowed to join doesn’t easily fit my definition no. The more open a competition is, the more equal the opportunity, the more egalitarian I would consider it.
And I wouldn’t describe something as theoretical when it does actually happen. The lower level clubs dream of climbing the ladder to the riches and the highest level of competition of the premier league and various trophies. It does sometimes happen. Rarely…yes, but it does happen, and crucially it can happen, whereas even the smallest possibility of it is engineered out of the NFL system.
Anyone can try out for an NFL team. They have walk-ons all the time. And sometimes people come in off the street, total nobodies, and make a team. You seem to only care about the possibility of a new team getting into the competition, and that’s the only kind of egalitarianism that matters. That’s as narrow as it can get.
I feel like I’m having a debate with someone who speaks a different language. It’s not your fault, we just have such different perspectives it’s impossible.
I do not think that is the only kind that matters, nor have I said it.
Regarding players, exactly the same situation applies for football in the UK and you can also have new teams getting into the competitions. You don’t seem to think that open competition and equal opportunities is an important part of egalitarianism. I do. So no, I suspect we aren’t going to agree.
There are no equal opportunities when you can buy success.
I would put it this way: one model provides more equal opportunities for teams to win the competition but less equal opportunities for teams to participate; the other model does precisely the reverse. It’s not clear to me that either is the one true definition of egalitarian.
That said, I am not remotely confident that pro/rel would cause a vast influx of new teams all fighting for the right to compete in the NFL and actually capable of doing so. Remember, you’re not just talking about establishing new teams, you’d have to establish whole new leagues. New sports leagues here are rarely successful or financially viable – it’s a minor miracle MLS still exists, and it’s probably the most successful new league in the last 30 years – and I suspect an NFL second division, even with the opportunity to join the NFL proper if you do well enough, would fold long before any of the teams were good enough to legitimately belong in the NFL.
Anybody can try out for an NFL team but I am pretty sure you have to be invited to try out. You cannot just show up and expect to try out. After the draft teams will sign undrafted college players to try out as free agents. Most of those guys don’t make it but a few do.
Open tryouts have happened in the NFL, but they’re rare and haven’t been held in decades.
What is the cost of buying an NFL franchise?