I knew England had a number of soccer leagues in a hierarchical structure where teams could be promoted and relegated between them. But I never knew it was made up of 24 levels, 140 leagues, 480 divisions, and over 7000 clubs.
If England can manage to promote and relegate teams within 24 levels, why can’t we figure it out with just five or so? (Yes I’m being rhetorical 🙂 )
Loading...
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Wow, that means if you start a new club and you promote every year, you will still need about 23 years to get to the premier league…
Then I’ll better buy myself a club like Chelsea…
December 25th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
the powers against pro/rel usually use the same issues,and a very partial analysys.
It wont work in america!
This argument doesnt make sense.Why wouldnt it work here if it has proven suscessfull all around the world.
The owners wont built a stadium to take the chance of being relegated.
What should be more important if we really care about the fans and the game:The guaranty for 1 owner not to fail, or the chance to every city to have a club ,compete and be rewarded through promotion to play on a
higher division.
TV deals wont work if a club in a mayor market gets relegated.
Not true,the benefit for TV chains would be great with the growth pro/rel would bring to the sport on the US by having clubs of difrent sizes all throuout the country.
Another argument is “identity”.We “americans” do things our way!!
America is a product of Oportinity,Competition and the pursuit of Quality. Pro/rel is all about those principles.
the list goes on and on. All the arguments against pro/rel are very shallow and partally analized.
Pro/rel is good for the cities,the fans and the players. The current system makes a lot of sense only for a little group with narrow interests.
What should carry more weight?