While there are clear similarities across the two games in terms of the sheer popularity (and thereby massive volume of money surrounding them), one may still wonder, why are the league structures and financial systems accompanying each so different?

​

 

IN EUROPE

​

Each major country in Europe hosts its own top tier league which is eligible to compete with its counterparts across the continent. Anyone who’s followed the sport even loosely will at least have heard of England’s Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga (among others). The annual UEFA Champions League routinely matches up the most illustrious clubs across these leagues, and over the course of an entire season—spanning from the end of the summer to its conclusion in May—fans across Europe and the world tune in to witness budding rivalries between between English, French, Spanish, German, and Italian clubs.

 

These same countries typically have multiple leagues below their top one, but even the clubs battling in these divisions can dream of one day fighting for Champions League glory—as the unprecedented run of Leicester City showed only two seasons ago. This possibility only exists due to European leagues’ open system, which calls for the annual promotion of the highest achieving teams in the lower league to the league above, and—consequently—mandates the relegation of an equal number of upper division clubs.

 

While this system may seem unfathomable in the U.S. (imagine the New York Yankees being sent to the minor leagues after an off year), it has proven to do wonders for incentivizing sustained competitiveness even when the league title—which is handed to the regular season winner—has been all but won. In fact, in a year like this when the Premier League title has essentially been claimed before New Year’s Day, some of the most exciting contests in England may be those involving teams fighting to avoid relegation in the season’s final weeks.

 

Along with the relegation battles at the bottom of such leagues, top teams also contend for the handful of spots allotted for the top European tournaments: The Champions League and the adjacent Europa League. Because the Premier League holds four guaranteed Champions League spots, the late season battles for second, third, and fourth place provide ample entertainment until the final match days.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Spain’s La Liga standings (or “table”) for the 2011-12 season, showing the open system of promotion & relegation

 

 

While the enhanced competition offered by the open system is a definite plus, it also reduces league-wide parity at the top divisions. Because the threat of relegation is so terrifying (as it comes at a tremendous financial and reputational cost), the wealthiest teams have no incentive to share revenue and maintain a competitive balance with the league’s poorer clubs. Consequently, a handful of teams rake in the majority of revenue and rarely—in fact, some never have—face the threat of demotion. Even a team like North London’s renowned Arsenal club, which has had a markedly bad season, remains in 6th place in the 20-team Premier League due in large part to its outspending of all the clubs below it.

 

At the same time Tottenham—the least wealthy of the “Big Six” teams in England (those with the highest profile and fattest wallets)—still has a payroll that is 50% higher than the seventh highest spender in the Premier League.

 

There is no cap to spending in Europe’s top leagues, and the outcome has been gargantuan transfers like this summer’s $200 million bill for Brazilian winger Neymar to be sent from FC Barcelona to Paris. The same unfettered spending has enabled Manchester City—a club which was once seen as subordinate to its more storied cross-town rival United—to be bankrolled by an Emirati oil tycoon and suddenly spring to the top of English soccer, despite the rival manager—Jose Mourinho’s—futile complaints.

 

So, while the open system does entirely eradicate any fears of a team “tanking” or benching players late in the season (an increasingly contentious issue in American sports), it has equally contributed to a wildly lopsided playing field between the rich teams and their less moneyed counterparts. The result is a constant dose of the same top teams in European competition each year, with occasional but scant variations. Though some may contend that it’s best to elevate the top clubs (and the major cities they reside in), one thing is certainly clear: the little guy almost never wins.

​

 

 

IN THE U.S.

 

Where the European system is decidedly cutthroat and unforgiving of poor performance, the system for American professional football is egalitarian and—many argue—socialistic. In the NFL, poor performance in one season is rewarded with high draft picks the subsequent year. At the same time, a system of revenue sharing and salary caps ensures parity by preventing wealthier teams from easily surpassing their small-market counterparts. As a result, the prerequisites for success lie in establishing a strong team culture and philosophy, smartly managing salaries and draft picks over extended periods, and implementing effective game plans week-to-week. This reality is exemplified by the New England Patriot’s dominance over that past two decades and the Cleveland Brown’s woeful showings over the same span.

 

While such factors definitely play a key part in building long-term success in Europe as well, recent years have shown that outspending the competition can also be an integral feature in ensuring success on the field. In the NFL, a system of mandated revenue sharing between teams and strict salary caps prevent teams with the fattest wallets from dominating the rest of the league.

 

One of the consequences of this system to ensure parity is that it has cemented a closed system for the sport of American football. While teams only win championships through merits, there is no severe punishment for teams who consistently underperform. While reputation and ticket sales certainly take a hit, the presence of revenue sharing and no fear of relegation enable sustained failure to linger for certain teams in the NFL.

 

While some may point to this status quo as harmful to competition, one must also consider the reasons why a closed system has emerged in American football. In the past, there have been multiple football leagues that have competed for players and audiences, but, ultimately, the NFL has prevailed by either consolidating with other leagues or out-performing them on and off the field. The end result has been a single destination for fans and players to find the highest level of football.

 

Consequently, the path of players has become markedly linear, with a handful exceptions for extremely gifted athletes from outside of the country. Players who excel at the high school level are offered scholarships from universities who compete in the NCAA, and the most exceptional players at the college level enter the NFL draft for placement with professional teams.

 

In comparison, professional soccer players each have a unique path throughout their career, often taking them from the amateur level to clubs in numerous countries and even continents. The greater number of options for soccer stars stems from the global popularity of the sport, and the number of different high-level professional leagues can only exist because of the extremely wide talent pool.

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The Baltimore Ravens' Joe Flacco celebrates with the Lombardi Trophy following their Super bowl victory in 2013

 

WHY SO DIFFERENT?

While there is debate as to why soccer has never become popular in the U.S., it is fairly clear why it is so popular in the rest of the world. The sport is decidedly simple in terms of its rules and the equipment needed to play. As such, even in the world’s poorest communities one can find matches being organized regularly.

​

The wide-open and low-scoring nature of the sport also enable less vaunted teams to legitimately compete with the most talented clubs in the world. Such a reality enables tournaments such as England’s FA Cup, which involves teams from the Premier League all the way down to amateur men’s teams, to produce legitimate competition. Even in the World Cup—the most esteemed of all international team sport competitions—Iceland’s national team will be legitimately competing against the soccer giants of Germany, France, and Brazil.

 

In American football, such competitions are unfathomable. Not only is the concept of national football teams nonexistent, but the nature of the sport itself ensures that every league (e.g. the NFL, Canadian Football League, NCAA, etc.) will only compete within itself. The outcome of even the best college football team playing the Cleveland Browns cannot be legitimately debated: not only would it be a blowout, but it would arguably be dangerous for the younger, less developed college players. In a sport where size, speed, and sheer physicality are king, it is essential that all teams competing can are at least relatively comparable across the board.

 

The concept of an open system, in which certain football teams are relegated to a lower division and others are promoted, is thereby impossible in American football due primarily to the nature of the sport itself. It is, however, not inconceivable that an open system might be implemented in other sports leagues in the United States. While the four main leagues in the U.S. (the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL) are far too entrenched to suddenly overhaul their competitive system, compelling cases have been made for U.S. professional soccer—with the highest league being the MLS—to adopt an open system.

 

In June of 2017, a lucrative $4 billion, 10-year broadcasting offer was extended to Major League Soccer, which included a stipulation that the league and its subsidiaries move to an open system. Riccardo Silva, who masterminded the offer, contends that in order for soccer to truly take hold in the American mainstream, it must provide excitement and competition that rivals that of the four most popular sports. He argues that an open system presents this opportunity by offering small-market teams a chance to rise to the top league while incentivizing vigorous competition among the MLS teams hoping to avoid relegation.

 

Currently, the biggest obstacle to this new system is the owners, whose fears of the financial burden of relegation prevent them from adopting what seems a decidedly foreign system. While there is no way of knowing the long-term fate of soccer in the U.S., one thing is clear: the two sports that are referred to as “football” certainly remain on disparate paths.