• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

FIFA World Cup 2014

#2,461
Kaa said:
OK, just did a little reading on the EPL in Wikipedia, and now have a question: why don't they have a salary cap? Seems like payroll parity would help make the EPL more interesting.
Click to expand...

The EPL is in competition for the best players in the world - it is not a virtual monopoly like the NFL, MLB, NHL and the NBA. If EPL salaries were constrained - players can go to Germany, Italy, France, Spain for big money. MLB doesn't have a hard cap because its players union is way more effective than the other leagues. Salary caps tend to make teams more competitive within their league which makes it more interesting for small market teams, but the teams are a little more bland, none stand out the way that the big money clubs in the EPL and La Liga do. I like seeing what happens when a bunch of truly great players are on one team even if it means the smaller clubs have no real hope of a championship. If you are thinking about an EPL team, the amount of money that they are willing to lay out for players should enter into your thinking.
 
#2,463
dangnewt said:
The EPL is in competition for the best players in the world - it is not a virtual monopoly like the NFL, MLB, NHL and the NBA. If EPL salaries were constrained - players can go to Germany, Italy, France, Spain for big money. MLB doesn't have a hard cap because its players union is way more effective than the other leagues. Salary caps tend to make teams more competitive within their league which makes it more interesting for small market teams, but the teams are a little more bland, none stand out the way that the big money clubs in the EPL and La Liga do. I like seeing what happens when a bunch of truly great players are on one team even if it means the smaller clubs have no real hope of a championship. If you are thinking about an EPL team, the amount of money that they are willing to lay out for players should enter into your thinking.
Click to expand...
Hmm, good point. As a n00b, I keep forgetting that the whole of the world is vying for these guys.
 
#2,467
Kaa said:
So, basically, I can root for one of the big money teams who buy their way into the championship, or root for one whose jersey/mascot/team song I like?
Click to expand...

It gets a bit more complicated - there are big money teams who spend money that they actually make and then there are teams that spend more than they make because the owner has more money than he knows what to do with - LFC is one of the former. That doesn't happen in the US, even with the owners that have more money than they know what to do with.
 
#2,468
dangnewt said:
It gets a bit more complicated - there are big money teams who spend money that they actually make and then there are teams that spend more than they make because the owner has more money than he knows what to do with - LFC is one of the former. That doesn't happen in the US, even with the owners that have more money than they know what to do with.
Click to expand...
Well, Randy Lerner was the owner of the Browns for 10 years, as well as Aston Villa, so I kinda understand.
 
#2,472
Kaa said:
I can understand and appreciate this. I was sort of joking with the LeBron mention. Although I will still say I think Randy Moss could have done it. He's not a really huge guy (maybe 200 lbs), but he (was) super athletic.
Click to expand...

The point is that being "super athletic" is not what makes you a great footballer.

Kaa said:
Matante, I would rebut your assertion that futbol, takes more skill than other sports. In my view, it takes a certain skill set to be a top flight player, along with great athleticism. As with any sport, when you get to be a world class player, I think the athleticism is a given. It's the particular skill sets for the sport where these guys diverge.
As with any sport, obviously, there is a "protoype" of body style you would want. you don't want short, slow basketball players, any more than you want a 6'10" 270 pound lumbering striker.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything abut football. And your view that it takes great athleticism is wrong. The point is that while other sports require a certain "prototype" of body style, football does not. That is why there are great footballers who are tall, short, skinny, pudgy, buffed, fast, slow, everything.

jrthebassguy said:
This was posted on Reddit the other day - I'd be interested in hearing what you, Bill, and other people from "football" nations think of this:
Click to expand...

The thing about the word "soccer" is that, at best, it was a nickname. It was never meant to be an official name for the sport. We sometimes call basketball "hoops", but we would never start a National Hoops League, or say that we have a US Men's National Hoops Team.

dangnewt said:
If there is enough money in the system, I'm thinking that US Soccer would have scholarships for lower-income players; but the flaw with the academy system ala tennis, skiing and you can throw gymnastics in there is the reliance on parents with the desire and ability to foot a pretty big bill. The assumption is that US Soccer would have enough skilled talent evaluators to figure out who will be the next Dempsey-Howard-Bradley will be and make it possible to attend.
Click to expand...

The academy system in football does not require any money from the players or their parents. Virtually every kid in Europe and Latin America who is good enough can join the academy of a local club and not pay a dime. The clubs need these academies as a source for players. It's a win-win for everyone. Only in the US do we have this backward pay-to-play system, but it is slowly changing.
 
#2,474
You don't choose a team.

Your team chooses you.

Evertonians are born, not manufactured.
image.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: matante
#2,475
matante said:
The point is that being "super athletic" is not what makes you a great footballer.



You don't know anything abut football. And your view that it takes great athleticism is wrong. The point is that while other sports require a certain "prototype" of body style, football does not. That is why there are great footballers who are tall, short, skinny, pudgy, buffed, fast, slow, everything.
Click to expand...

Kinda like baseball?.........or ..........curling?

......or darts. I know that's not a "team" game, but criminy! what a skill set!
 
#2,476
Unprofessional said:
Oh, you do not hate Man City.
Click to expand...
I do.
matante said:
The point is that being "super athletic" is not what makes you a great footballer.



You don't know anything abut football. And your view that it takes great athleticism is wrong. The point is that while other sports require a certain "prototype" of body style, football does not. That is why there are great footballers who are tall, short, skinny, pudgy, buffed, fast, slow, everything.
Click to expand...
The problem is you thinking these guys are "just athletes" because they play in a more physical sport than soccer. Thing is, they can(and quite a few do) have massive natural talent, and the drive to go with it. Being athletic is no problem, some of the best footballers are athletic, like Ronaldo, or Adriano was before his life went down the drain, in fact, despite different body builds, most footballers are highly athletic. They run a lot.

Anyways back to the point, many young American sportsmen play in multiple sports to a high competitive level, and end up having their pick after college, of NFL, NBA, MLB, whatever. Guaranteed if even a small percentage of America's top sportsmen had were highly interested in soccer, they'd have been able to do it to a high level, if they were driven in that direction, and dedicated.
 
#2,479
Darth Handsome said:
Kinda like baseball?.........or ..........curling?

......or darts. I know that's not a "team" game, but criminy! what a skill set!
Click to expand...

Baseball takes tremendous skill; I never said it didn't. But I know baseball and I know footie, and I know which takes more skill.

Darkstrike said:
I do.

The problem is you thinking these guys are "just athletes" because they play in a more physical sport than soccer. Thing is, they can(and quite a few do) have massive natural talent, and the drive to go with it. Being athletic is no problem, some of the best footballers are athletic, like Ronaldo, or Adriano was before his life went down the drain, in fact, despite different body builds, most footballers are highly athletic. They run a lot.

Anyways back to the point, many young American sportsmen play in multiple sports to a high competitive level, and end up having their pick after college, of NFL, NBA, MLB, whatever. Guaranteed if even a small percentage of America's top sportsmen had were highly interested in soccer, they'd have been able to do it to a high level, if they were driven in that direction, and dedicated.
Click to expand...

I know that many sports take skill, and a lot of it. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that a guy like Cristiano Ronaldo isn't the strongest guy in Europe, or the tallest, or the fastest. He doesn't jump super high. Europe has plenty of athletic guys who end up playing basketball or volleyball or rugby, or nowadays, even tennis. I am not saying any of these guys are "just athletes", just saying that their sport requires an athleticism that football does not.
 
#2,480
Tituscrow said:
Have you ever tried playing snooker on a 12 foot table?

Back in the 70s and 80s, those guys used to drink and smoke between shots.

Bill Werbeniuk was the supreme physical specimen.
Click to expand...


Of course. Im f*****g terrible. On occasion, I get "distance hooked".

Truth is, there's no such thing as a "most skilled sport". It was a foolish claim to make, unless it was tongue in cheek.

.....which may or may not be an interesting niche on xhamster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tituscrow

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back