football thread No11

LA doesn't field an NFL team because the attendance wasn't enough the last time they tried (people prefer baseball and basketball there).

LA has 2 now thanks to Stan Kroenke'$ lubrication of the franchi$e move proce$$. 1 is extremely unlikely to be viable, the other can be if they win.

On topic, it will be interesting to see how much Mahrez sees the field with City, and how much it hurts Leicester.

@Takhisis - Agree about Juventus signing declining Ronaldo for prime Ronaldo money. God knows I've seen enough of that in American pro sports to know that the chances of it working out well are poor.

Anyone have any idea why it took Chelsea so long to sack Conte since it has seemed inevitable for quite a while?
 
They were negociating his compensation I think
 
That makes sense.
 
Given that they had a replacement lined up already, that's the most logical explanation.
 
Looks like Real Madrid might be making a move to sign Cortouis...It's a rumor so far, so take it with a grain of salt...
 
Supposedly it's Neymar and Mbappé in to replace Cristiano ‘third-best’ Ronaldo.
 
Supposedly they're not going to go after Neymar. Mbappe is intriguing, though.
 
I'm pretty sure Mbappe won't leave Paris this summer
 
I have no idea if this is the case for Canberra, but many people only actively support one or two clubs. Toulouse is one of the largest cities in France, yet it can't fill its football stadium on weekends because people there are more interested in rugby. LA doesn't field an NFL team because the attendance wasn't enough the last time they tried (people prefer baseball and basketball there). Maybe most people in Canberra already have their n°1 sports team ?

Missed this earlier - Australia's got a completely regionally fragmented football landscape. You'd be familiar with that given the way France is split between a soccer-predominant north and rugby being strong mostly in the south.

The difference however is that soccer isn't the major sport anywhere here (you may have noticed we're not good at soccer the way we are at say, rugby). Australia is split into two. In the book I helped write we drew the line like this:

upload_2018-7-16_22-28-46.png


The north/east is the predominantly Rugby League half (with rugby union as a much smaller niche sport mostly for the upper class) centred on Sydney and Brisbane, then the southern states ie Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania, are all dominated by Australian Rules Football (the AFL). The north/east has about 5% more of the national population.

There's 9 AFL teams in Melbourne and 8 Rugby League teams in Sydney, because both national competitions originated as local competitions and expanded from those cities, adding teams from elsewhere. Crossing that dividing line is hard - there's four AFL teams in the northeast, but two are very new and speculative expansions. In the southwest there is only one Rugby League and Rugby Union team in in Melbourne and currently nothing anywhere else.

Now. Canberra sits more or less in the transition area between the two zones, but has tilted more towards the Rugby codes since it got a League team in the 1980s and a Union team in the 1990s. It's still got a big AFL presence, and is best described as a "mixed" city due to the continuous influx of workers from both Sydney and Melbourne. However we don't have an AFL team. Instead, Canberra hosts some home games played by the new Sydney club.

What about soccer? So soccer is a niche sport everywhere, historically especially associated with migrant communities, and competing against bigger established clubs everywhere. While it's more popular in New South Wales (in Sydney and the satellite cities spreading north of there to Newcastle especially) and has great youth participation figures, as an elite spectator sport it's not the predominant or most popular sport anywhere in Australia.

The entire elite tier of soccer was only established in 1977, collapsed completely in 2004 after pretty much constant turmoil and turnover in participants, and was reconstituted 18 months later in its tightly organised and highly centralised current form, with an explicit goal of purging Australian soccer of its previous ethnic character by excluding clubs with ethnic origins and encouraging lower tier clubs to shed their identity markers while banning new ones (I count clubs in the current second tier in different states with Italian, Greek, Croatian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish, Cypriot, Dutch, Polish, Ukrainian and Jewish roots and I'm also aware of Spanish, Maltese, German and Hungarian clubs at lower tiers). Collapse and centralised total overhaul is not something you see happen with the major sports.

Compared to the big Rugby League and AFL comps, soccer is far smaller. The broadcast deal is maybe 1/10th the revenue, about $60m vs $600m and $400m per year, and the salary cap is $2.6m vs the AFL's $12m and Rugby League's $9m. Attendances are low, for the AFL they are about 35k per game, for Rugby League about 15k per game (but with some much bigger ones and a big TV audience) while for the A-League they're about 10k with the majority of clubs being below that average.

These comparatively low operating costs, the stability gained by the absence of relegation, and especially playing mostly in summer when there's no other football are the key to why elite soccer clubs are able to sustain themselves even in very crowded and contested markets. Until the last 6 or 8 weeks of the A-League season the only thing soccer really competes with is cricket which for a few reasons isn't really a direct competitor to the A-League.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Arwon, very informative post. A quick question though, apparently rugby union isn't as organized as rugby league in Australia. When Australia plays rugby union competition such as the world cup or the tri-nation, does it do so exclusively with rugby league players? As for New Zealand, is it the same as in Australia or is it mostly rugby union like in Europe?

The difference however is that soccer isn't the major sport anywhere here (you may have noticed we're not good at soccer the way we are at say, rugby). Australia is split into two. In the book I helped write we drew the line like this:
That's a minor point but there's a slight misconception here. Football/soccer dominates everywhere in France, both North and South. It's only that the rugby culture is indeed something from the French Southwest, but even there it coexists with football/soccer. Even in Toulouse, which is the temple of French rugby, you can find a pretty important football club: the TFC. On the other hand, besides Paris, there's just no rugby club at all the Northern half of the country.
 
It's not so much that Rugby Union is less organised, it's just less popular.

Some players DO switch between the codes (Israel Folau began as a Rugby League player) but they're fully independent of each other. Australian Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union are entirely separate organisations, with a history of rivalry and acrimony borne of their class divisions as much as anything. You can actually map the traditional Rugby League and Rugby Union club locations in the Sydney comp against the socioeconomic status of the areas fairly easily, there's a big south/west v north/east split.

As in England (and as was the case in France prior to the events of WW2), Rugby is posh and elite, mostly the domain of private schools, while League is traditionally working class, and the split occurred over the issue of player payments. I think Rugby League's early commercialisation is the reason it got so much bigger than Union in Sydney and Brisbane.

(This is probably a microcosm of why soccer is the most popular British sport globally, ie it was the code of football that went to a professionalised and business oriented basis earliest, and it was the most able to spread beyond the Empire via British capitalism not merely alongside British colonial administrators as was the case with rugby and cricket)

Rugby Australia has regional member unions and a major competition in Sydney and one in Brisbane, but neither of those ever went national. Instead, the peak club league is Super Rugby, a trans-national competition where the four Australian teams compete with South African clubs and now an Argentinian club and a Japanese one, and get roundly beaten by New Zealand teams. I think it's probably the equivalent tier to the European Champions Cup, but with a permanent set of clubs competing in it, and the tier below (ie the equivalent of Top 14, Premiership Rugby and Pro 14) treated as reserves leagues.

The Australian Rugby League Commission runs the National Rugby League club competition, which is an expansion of the old Sydney league to include teams in Queensland, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne and New Zealand. They also field a national team, the Kangaroos, who compete mostly with New Zealand and England, but there's a pretty silly little Rugby League World Cup too.

In New Zealand Rugby Union is the biggest sport by a wide margin, and it doesn't really have class connotations as a result. The same is true in the Pacific Islands who field rugby teams (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa). Rugby League is smaller in NZ and is marked as a purely working class game, but they have a side in our National Rugby League competition. As is the case here, soccer is quite niche over there too.

They're also into cricket and netball like Australians are. Australia is roughly as dominant of New Zealand in cricket as they are of us in Rugby Union - despite their smaller size, their Union player base is much bigger than ours, while in cricket since it's the summer obsession of both countries our simple numbers win out.
 
Last edited:
Everyone got their bets placed on Watford to win the PL now?
 
They might do as Hull did in 2008-09 or as Leicester in that wonderful 2015-16. Time will tell.
 
It's super complicated, and makes no sense. Here's how it goes (I'll try my best to make it clear) :

The 12 teams with the highest FIFA rankings are in league A (FIFA ranking will not matter beyond this year's Nations League but they needed a ranking for the first one). They're in groups of 3 (for example France/Germany/Netherlands). Every team plays each other twice (home and away). The winners of the four groups will play the nations league final competition next summer (semi final -> final). Those who finish 3rd will be relegated to League B for the next nations league.
For leagues B, C and D it's the same thing except some groups have 4 teams in them instead of 3, and the winner doesn't play for the Nations League title but instead will be promoted into the league above (B into A, C into B and D into C) for the next Nations League.

Then what's the point of all this if you're not in league A competing for the nations league title ? Well after the usual qualifiers for the EURO 2020 are over, the teams that have not qualified will be doing playoffs to see who gets one of the last 4 spots. And those playoffs will be between the teams who performed best in the nations league. So the 4 teams who didn't qualify for the EURO but who did best in league D will play against each other to take one spot, so will the "best" 4 teams in league C, league B and league A. So it's a way to give teams who don't qualify via the normal way a second chance at getting to the EURO.

Pros :
Nice competitive games like Fr/Ger or Spa/Eng this week.
Next summer might be fun with the nations league final
Opportunities for small teams to play other small teams and be happy 'cos they won a game

Cons :
really complicated for no reason
one team from league D, who will not have earned their qualification in the normal way, will qualify for the EURO whatever happens. The list of nations in League D is :
Azerbaijan
Macedonia
Belarus
Georgia
Armenia
Latvia
Faroe Islands
Luxembourg
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Malta
Andorra
Kosovo
San Marino
Gibraltar

How exciting will it be to see one of these in the EURO...

edit : Also one from League C will qualify outside the normal way. It's not as bad, because some of them are decent enough
 
Last edited:
Yeah way too complicated. I startet reading a piece that explained it all but it was just too boring with so many ifs and buts. But other than that, it's a nice new edition.
 
I said it when they first announced it and I will say it again today: ridiculous.
 
They need more luck than in the last few years, and they need to play a lot better than they did at Anfield. Currently they're transitioning to Tuchel's style so it's not very clear how good they could be
 
Top Bottom