Does anyone else find it it weird that the USA, despite being one of (or the?) most right wing country in the world politically, is also the only country in the world that has a completely communist structure for all its major sports? To everyone else the whole concept of Drafts and "Franchises" seems so restrictive that it's ridiculous. It would probably even be illegal in the European Union.

How did it come about that all of the major sports in the USA are so centrally controlled? And how can this communist structure be squared with the USA's reputation as "the land of the free"?

dude its sports, not the government

one of the reason i could never work in any function in US sports. besides the fact that i don't qualify of course.

i mean if he wanted to make an anti-american thread im sure there is more than 1 in n&d

No no no! I was going to put a disclaimer that that isn't the point of the thread. I'm genuinely curious as to how this structure of sports came about in the USA and why it is tolerated by fans, why it is tolerated by the sports team owners, and how to explain the curiosity of the most free market country in the world having the completely opposite ethos in their sports. I'm not bashing the sports system, just curious about this paradox.

well what is it like with european soccer? can players go from team to team freely? i think it is tolerated by fans b/c competition is greater, im not sure of its origins though

[quote="Pearl Jam"]Does anyone else find it it weird that the USA, despite being one of (or the?) most right wing country in the world politically...quote]

I stopped reading after 'politically'.

Yes players go from team to team freely in return for a transfer fee, or for no fee at the end of their contract. A couple of years ago they introduced the transfer window, so now transfers can only take place during the off season and for a month halfway through the season.

Also, a club can be a Public Limited Company, a private company, a membership based club, or whatever. Any club can join their local league and theoretically get promoted all the way to their countries top division.

It seems to me that this is the only area that the rest of the world is more free-market than the USA.

that's why i HATE US sports, it's always the same bunch of teams winning everything. It's never some local team from BFE that promoted through the ranks and made it big just by quality and or luck. It's all about who has the most money here. Unfortunately money has become way too important in soccer as well.

I don't quite understand this though, isn't the whole point of a draft system to stop one team dominating every year? And wouldn't the big teams be able to make far more money if they had a free market system?

i think communism is a very bad analogy.

in no way is everyone the same, nor are they allowed to only do certain things. they aren't really restricted. if it were communism, you'd have a bunch of shitty teams with the same talent levels spending the exact same amount of money and the managers telling their players about all kinds of "five year plans" for winning,

you couldn't be more wrong.
Super Bowl winners the past 9 years:
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
New England
New England
Tampa Bay
New England
Baltimore
St Louis
Denver

that's 7 different teams

World Series winners the past 8 years
Cardinals
White Sox
Red Sox
Marlins
Angels
Diamondbacks
Yankees

8 different teams

I'd go on but what's the point

Yeah, that's what I thought, the draft system ensures that a different team wins every year, more or less. Compare this to a free market system, like European soccer for example, where in most countries the same 3 or 4 teams will dominate for decades at a time. What I don't understand is why the owners of the biggest clubs aren't demanding the abolition of the draft system.

And why don't the team jerseys have sponsors on them? You would think the USA would have been the first country in the world to turn the players into walking adverts, not the last.

Because the respective leagues will not allow the owners of the biggest clubs to demand stuff. Majority rules when it comes to the owners. 3 or 4 owners can't control the league.

I can't possibly imagine sponsors on the front of jerseys. Some things must remain pure in American sports. Most Americans cannot even comprehend putting a stupid logo on a jersey. The New York Yankees with a cell phone logo on their jerseys? Are you kidding me? That is one thing I never understood about Europe and their soccer teams. What is the team logo and why isn't that on the jersey instead of some stupid breakfast cereal logo?

Fair enough Clubber, but even as a non US sports fan/follower i recognize all of those team names. Like, is it possible for teams to relegate and promote to another division?

No, once you are in the league, it is very hard to contract a team out of the league. That is one thing I wish they would change. Teams like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (Baseball) or Detroit Lions (Football) should be sent to the minor leagues or something and the minors could send up the best teams to replace them. It would never happen in America, though.

The clubs have a small badge rather than a large logo. To us the idea of a large team logo on the front of the jersey seems silly, but I do agree it is preferable to a sponsor. Money talks in the free market though. I believe Barcelona are the only club in the world to refuse to have a sponsor on their jersey, fair play to them.

i might be wrong, but i believe Barcelona accepted an offer from Amnesty International, or another humanitarian organization.