Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81
For me it was. There was a decade there with 5 or 6 winners and about 8 or 9 teams who managed to have a season in the top three. I found the league interesting and a lot of the title races pretty compelling.
I don't like North American leagues where there is no connection between how much money you earn from your fans or how well you develop players and winning - would never want them to swing that far, chasing parity to the point where you eliminate the meritocracy. You don't attract enough fans or develop or scout players well enough, you don't deserve to win, full stop. The EPL has no teams like the Oilers who have failed their way into competitiveness and that alone makes me like the league way way more.
Entry drafts and salary caps for me are the worst. But I think that the prem has become something else now with "financial doping".... the clubs that are winning aren't doing that on the back of commercial or developmental success, its become completely driven by who is willing to sustain the biggest losses and just inject the most money from ownership.
FFP rules need to be enforced a lot harder moving forward but not a lot of faith that will happen
|
Still though even back then there were 10 teams a year that likely had no shot of ever winning it. Not just that season, but ever.
It's why Leicester is the greatest team sports story of all time, the most unthinkable and remarkable champion in any sport ever.
Problem is it's not like you can just say "the smaller teams need to scout better and find younger players" because those big teams just buy every 18 year old with promise too and then loan them out.
North American sports have their flaw but at least you know if your team is run properly you can win a title won day.
European football means that if you're run properly maybe you can hope to get in Europe one year and then you probably lose half your players anyways.