jones wrote:

Whatever happened to the idea of the EPL being the most competitive league especially its bottom half teams? Those teams would get absolutely murdered by their Spanish counterpart, their Italian or German rivals probably too.

I have my doubts about Levante murdering Southampton or Malaga murdering West Brom or Leganes hammering the hammers, etc

I was talking about a 'best of the rest' selection as in the opening post.

Klaus wrote:

And yet Leicester won Premier League two years ago.

Btw, the Leicester example that we always bring out as the single example do competitiveness is actually proof the contrary. We always refer to Leicester. And the reality is an exceptional set of circumstances conspired to make them champions. Leicester before and after are a midtable club or worse. And that is the reality of clubs outside the top six.

It is this glass ceiling, this predestined order, that leaves me uncomfortable. We know every season, that there is little chance we win the league. And similarly, a trip to the Champions League is basically out of the question for Bournemouth or Southampton fans. There is some tail-end probability that all th de events can occur, and in Leicester’s case they did, but as presently constituted it is far too low and the general order is far too certain. Similarly, eople celebrate the upsets in this league. That’s great. But at the end of the day, after Watford mauled them 4-1, Chelsea are still 4th in the league and Watford 11th, and it is extremely unlikely that order will be reversed come season end.

There has always been hierarch y in English football, but the problem has gotten worse with time. Just look at 80s Premier League tables and you will see that, Liverpool aside, there was a fair amount of volatility in final finishes.

I think the Premier League has an opportunity to say we want to be different. We want to find a way to being back that volatility. So that all fans can dream of something more than their pre-allocated relegation scrap, midtable mediocrity or fight for 4th each August.

That’s basically how every sport that isn’t salary capped works.

Bosscielny wrote:

That’s basically how every sport that isn’t salary capped works.

The NFL is salary capped and there's no chance the Cleveland Browns or Buffalo Bills win the SB any time soon. They won't even reach the playoffs regularly.

Claudius wrote:

Klaus wrote:

And yet Leicester won Premier League two years ago.

There has always been hierarch y in English football, but the problem has gotten worse with time. Just look at 80s Premier League tables and you will see that, Liverpool aside, there was a fair amount of volatility in final finishes.  

Isn't the only difference being that there was only 1 team that really dominated rather than 4 or 6? Same thing with United over most of the 90's. Competition at the top has increased but as a result the also rans have a tougher time to break into that bracket. So, like Leicester, they need 4-6 teams to under perform to have a chance at winning.

Ultimately though, you still had just 4 teams win it over a 10 year period in the 80's with one team accounting for 6 of those wins, the exact same number as over the last 10 years, except the most one team have won it is 4 times.

Its funny because this debate used to be about the top 4 being impossible to break. Now that its a top 6 apparently things are less competitive.

Claudius wrote:

Klaus wrote:

And yet Leicester won Premier League two years ago.

Btw, the Leicester example that we always bring out as the single example do competitiveness is actually proof the contrary.  We always refer to Leicester. And the reality is an exceptional set of circumstances conspired to make them champions. Leicester before and after are a midtable club or worse. And that is the reality of clubs outside the top six.

Look, I'm just saying - if your point is that any teams outside the top six are unable to compete then you can't very well ignore Leicester winning the league on account of it being an outlier. Of course it is. That is not the point.

Tony Montana wrote:

Bosscielny wrote:

That’s basically how every sport that isn’t salary capped works.

The NFL is salary capped and there's no chance the Cleveland Browns or Buffalo Bills win the SB any time soon. They won't even reach the playoffs regularly.

Yeah? How many people picked the Eagles to win the SB this season? Or the Vikings or Jags to make the conference finals?

Exactly. There are still richer and poorer franchises, but coaching and ability will dictate over money when it comes right down to it. If a team isn't well run financially that's one thing, but if you have the fan base and are competent on the business side, then you'll get a shot at it.

Klaus wrote:

Claudius wrote:

Btw, the Leicester example that we always bring out as the single example do competitiveness is actually proof the contrary.  We always refer to Leicester. And the reality is an exceptional set of circumstances conspired to make them champions. Leicester before and after are a midtable club or worse. And that is the reality of clubs outside the top six.

Look, I'm just saying - if your point is that any teams outside the top six are unable to compete then you can't very well ignore Leicester winning the league on account of it being an outlier. Of course it is. That is not the point.

It’s precisely the point. Don’t football fans who don’t support Chelsea, City and United deserve more?

I don't know that they deserve anything, but relative succes or failure in sport should be about more than how much money your team operates with. It'll always be a factor, and that's alright with me, but some reasonable limits would certainly advance the spirit of the game.

Coombs wrote:

Exactly. There are still richer and poorer franchises, but coaching and ability will dictate over money when it comes right down to it. If a team isn't well run financially that's one thing, but if you have the fan base and are competent on the business side, then you'll get a shot at it.

The draft keeps things competitive too doesn't it? The lower placed teams get higher priority picks for new young players or something like that? I've always wondered if that creates an incentive to completely bomb your season and finish last though, if you know that you won't win anything (edit: and since there's no relegation).