There's a lot to be said about this exhaustive piece, but here are a few quotes:
Bad teams are bad because they have PEBKAC/ID10T error in the front office, not because the treacherous players are being paid too much or the coaches are incompetent:salary caps, luxury taxes and revenue sharing have no effect on competitive balance. John Vrooman found in his 1995 study that salary caps ironically promote competitive imbalance because it allows the league to behave as one entity, rather than each team acting as an individual firm. Once a league is recognized as a single economic entity, it (shockingly) starts acting like one, and that isn't good from a competitive balance perspective. Once MLB, for example, is a single entity, it's primarily concerned with the health of the entire league. So it institutes policies that may shuffle money around to make unprofitable teams profitable, but it doesn't mandate they become more competitive, as has been the case with the Pittsburgh Pirates, who have (until recently) been lousy on the field for two decades, and yet quite profitable off of it.
Evil soccer leagues don't use the American sports system:As the data has shown, clubs aren't weak because of a league's structural features; they're weak independent of what structural features leagues implement. In fact, the definition itself is circular. A well-run club can, by definition, field a competitive team by finding labor market inefficiencies to exploit. There have been far more small-market clubs able to do so than those that have lost money in any given year over the past three decades.
Rich teams still have to be well-run (ahem, Leafs):But this made me wonder why we don't hear European soccer leagues talk more about competitive balance, even though they draw from a global talent pool. Berri's answer was the simplest one he could give: It would be illegal for them. You see, those darn socialists in the European Union make their sports leagues abide by all the same labor laws as every other industry: You can't own the rights to a worker before he signs a contract, you can't collude to determine how much money you will spend on employee salaries in order to artificially lower their value, and you can't penalize each other for spending too much money on employees.
These are things I've been saying for awhile. We need to read this article and understand these points to counter the propaganda coming out of NA sports leagues, and from Rogers/Bell in this city in particular. The teams in this city have not been utter failures because of Vince Carter or Andrea whatshisname, or various coaches. It's the mismanagement fostered by ownership that is responsible. Until fans stop drinking the Rogers kool-aid in this town, stop going to games and funding these teams, stop rewarding failure, nothing is likely to change.Forget Hollywood's portrayal, the statistical revolution hasn't been about rich teams versus poor teams; it's about not overpaying, which is what salary caps and luxury taxes have been trying to prevent. In some ways, advanced statistics are accomplishing what lockouts, luxury taxes and salary caps have been attempting for decades. One of the reasons these league policies haven't affected competitive balance is because spending more money on players than they're worth isn't a good strategy for winning games.