You were saying?

And then there's this

Seems like it's the parents driving this phenomenon, and no youth sport is immune from it.

An oddity:

Professional soccer in Europe is run on strictly free-market capitalist grounds. The most successful and richest clubs keep what they earn from gate receipts, merchandise etc and keep on getting richer. Thus all the major leagues are dominated by the gigantic, super-rich teams (Manchester United, Chelsea, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan etc).

American Football is run on entirely socialist grounds, where all merchandise receipts are put into a big national pot and shared out. The college draft system is essentially commie, too.

Not to mention no relegation from the top division.

Brit:

Not so. It's all market-driven in response to consumer demand.

Jim in Chicago:

The second item you linked to cracked me up. Coach Bob wrote: "I have seen the parents BUY trophies for the kids on teams who finished dead last THAT WERE TWICE AS LARGE AS THE TROPHIES PRESENTED TO THE WINNERS BY THE LEAGUE! Is that justice?"

Well, yeah. That'd be capitalism. If I can afford to buy my kid an enormous trophy and choose to do so, then, yes, that is justice!

Coach Bob also wrote: "Sad... very sad, for it is clear that they do not truly understand the concept of competition."

Apparently, Coach Bob is a little weak on the concept of capitalist competition.

Part of the issue is that buying stupid little pins for the kids is it's actually demeaning since these days, we're all so rich, that they get nicer stuff in their kids meals. So if you're gonna get them anything at all, get them a trophy.

Now, I personally would prefer that they don't give my kids pins or trophies, because even a trophy (even if it's for winning) is yet more junk and clutter in my house. The TEAM should get a trophy and it should live in the clubhouse with the kids' names on it.

No one contends football is American. It's just soccer for people with skills.

It has nothing to do with soccer. That was merely his example. What he's talking about is the idea (a 1970's idea - go figure) that there should be no winners and no losers. Hence everyone gets a trophy.

I'll bet those communities where the soccer leagues do this, the baseball does it also.

Having been a worthless athelete in my youth, I can say with some conviction that getting the "loser prize" that they give to the fat kids so they don't feel bad is even more humiliating than just being allowed to lose with dignity.

You are saying that American football is for people with skills, whereas soccer isn't? What an odd statement. American football is hardly played at all outside of the US, whereas soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world. The skills needed to play on top level are much lower in Am. football, because there is much less competition.

American football is basically an amateur sport in comparison to soccer.

There's no point in arguing this topic with OJ. No evidence and no argument will sway his mind.

Morko:

Yes, every doofus on Earth can run and kick, which makes it the perfect egalitarian activity.

oj, I'm right, you're wrong. Capitalism's a bitch.

Morko:

Bingo! Capitalism's a bitch. Egalitarianism is a Mother. Soccer is motherly.

oj: Admit defeat already, you can still continue watching American socialist sports like football and baseball; no one's going to force you to watch true sports like soccer.

Morko:

Of course not, it isn't even televised here. It's not an American game. You couldn't force us to watch it.

OJ:

(American) Football is a fine game of skill for the coaches. Using 300-pound humans for pieces is merely charmingly eccentric.

Oh there's plenty of real football televised here. Dozens of games per weekend and more European and cup fixtures during the week. Even if you're just talking about the English prem, I can watch more live footie matches per weekend then I can watch NFL games.

And Ali makes a killer point. No relegation in American sports! Nothing more capitalist and competitive than having your team sent to a lower division, and the best teams from the lower division promoted in your place.

If there was relegation in baseball, the Red Sox would still be struggling to make their way up from a single A league.

Jim:

Relegation is for sissies. In American sport you just have to face losing.

Soccer's a sport I enjoyed playing but really hate watching. Weird, huh?

Rugby: There's a sport I love playing and watching.

Competition is for sissies, eh?

Will that be your epitaph OJ?

BTW: Reading, the runaway winners of the England's second highest division, who will duly be ascending to the Premiership next season, to replace the likes of Sunderland, who will be going down, have two brilliant young Americans, the winger Bobby Convey, and the keeper Marcus Henneman.

The future is now.

Hey, without relegation, you might as well give every player on every American pro sports team their own trophy for participating!

Without relegation, aren't there a hell of a lot of meaningless games after about halfway through the season?

(The kind where we say they the teams are 'playing for pride only').

Brit:

Except most American sports have tried to get around that by allowing more and more teams to make the post-season "playoffs" -- the knock-out competition which is where the championships are won.

The regular season matches only become meaningless in so far as both teams in a particular matchup have no shot of making the playoffs.

Brit:

Not in baseball. Every game is meaningful. In garbage sports like soccer and football everythings meaningless.

Brit - Yes, European teams fail to cooperate for the common good, while American teams do cooperate. This is what makes America successful. It's not communism, or socialism - those are authoritarian systems, antithetical to human cooperation.

Jim:

Quitting instead of competing and losing is for sissies, which is what relegation consists of.

TWN:

Not at all. It's easy enough that it gives every player delusions of competence.

How?

Failure is punished. Success is rewarded. Unlike American sports where moribnd franchises like the Cleveland Indians, Boston Red Sox, NY Mets, et al, get to hang around for decades, often suckling the teat of successful franchises, such as, for example, the Yankees.

Jim:

The Red Sox and White Sox absorbed their pounishment and then won. In soccer they'd be moved to a group they could win so their feelings wouldn't be hurt. It's a feminine notion.

Yes, but when they won that group they would be back in the majors.

And when they went down, they'd be replaced with a winning club from the lower division, a club with all the incentive in the world to play as hard as possible, every game, so as to continue feeding at the major league trough.

You seem to think that once down, the blub is gone forever. It's a two way street, one club goes down, another goes up.

Would major league baseball be worse off if, e.g., Kansas City, instead of having an owner who lived off the Steinbrenner dole, actually had to try and win, or end up in Triple A, with Pawtucket or some other TripleA club ascending to the majors?

The feminine notion is yours: that there be no consequences to losing.

You're floundering here. It's like watching a Protestant divine try and convince himself that Hoc est enim corpus meum doesn't mean what it clearly does.

Soccer is not the issue. My grade school had the year end school olympics. Each student could choose any 3-5 events they could compete in. Ribbons for the 1-3 places were given for each event. But everyone also got a "participant" ribbon as well. All the kids knew these were garbage ribbons that meant nothing. Only the parents and faculty were deluding themselves.

Jim:

No, I think they use a handicap system as egalitarians are wont to. The only place in America we use it is classrooms, which are run by our own version of Europeans.

The Yankees do well because they monopolize the ad revenue from the New York market. If anyone was free to set up shop, the NYC market would be divided between 5-6 teams, making the Yankees no better than the Royals or some other medicore market. Their championships would decline accordingly. Steinbrenner is propped up because he can veto teams from moving into his market.

Incidentally, although poor in World Series championships, most franchises - even the Red Sox, Indians, or White Sox - have winning seasons. Most would not collapse and fall into AA ball, except maybe the Cubs.

No sports league, professional or amatuer (other than soccer perhaps---but I'm talking sports here, not merely organized exercise) in the US uses this relegation system. So, the US, with the most raw capitalism in the world, obviously does not valuethis effete European system.

So what you're trying to say is, "est does not mean is".

Got it.

You'd be better off arguing, not that the European system is effete or feminine, but that it's social darwinist.

(Admitting that the relegation system is not "sissy" doesn't mean you're admitting you like soccer).

Yeah, Chris I agree with that. And I think it would be a good thing for baseball if there were as many professional teams in an area as the market could bear.

It would also breed local, neighborhood, loyalties, which any conservative has to love.

Just look at how popular the Cyclones and Staten Island Yankees have been. Then imagine if they were allowed to move up a league ladder via a promotion/relegation system.

London for example has numerous teams, I'm tempted to say dozens, five of which -- Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, West Ham, and Charlton -- are in the top division.

OJ:

The fact that football requires and rewards skill is precisely what makes it American. You'll also note that no other country in the world really gives a damn about it, which is consistent with it being an inherently American game.

Also, if I understand relegation correctly, the idea is to humiliate and punish losers, and also to reward lower-league teams for their prowess. No higher-level team wants to be relegated, because all the stars proceed to leave the team and the moneyflow dwindles. It's the only European sports concept that I've ever liked.

Even soccer players have enough pride to pretend they don't want to be sent down.

Jim:

No, it's Intelligent Design. Darwinism would let them lose, not intervene.

Soccer was introduced in America precisely so girls could play.

Teachers unions have eliminated competition and meritocracy in the teaching profession--those worthless trophys are monuments to themselves.

OJ:

Again, the stars leave the team and the moneyflow dwindles. No team in their right mind wants that.

Matt:

It's Europe, it's not about money, just hurt feelings.

It's about money to an obscene degree. Roman Abramovich has spent half a billion pounds on players for Chelsea.

Jim:

You missed Fulham. Plus there's Crystal Palace, Watford, Luton, QPR and Milwall in the next division.

The most striking current example of the democracy and free market approach of English football is Wigan Athletic. They've only existed in the football league for 30 years, and now they're in the Premiership. Meanwhile old giants like Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest have collapsed.

The equivalents in America get a big social safety net. In Europe it's sink or swim.

So it's not about money.

in american sports we relegate (and promote) at the level of the individual player.