- Is Pep Guardiola's talent being overlooked just because the club spent a lot of money in the last transfer window? Why or why not?
- Should there be a limit of how much a club can spend in the transfer windows?
- Is Manchester City winning the Premier League so early bad for the Premier League and the entire sport of soccer?
Friday, April 20, 2018
Manchester City Wins Premier League! But is it fair?
http://www.espn.com/soccer/club/manchester-city/382/blog/post/3462632/manchester-city-critics-obsessed-over-guardiola-spending-overlook-his-talent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2. I don't think there should be a limit on how much teams can spend in any given transfer window. Although this allows the rich clubs to consistently bring in the most talent, this is how it has always been done and if the team has earned enough money to spend as much as they do, then they should have the right to spend as much as they want.
ReplyDelete3. I think City or and team in the league winning that early is not great for the league, but isn't horrible. When any team wins early in the year, I think it is probably bad for ratings and fan interest. However, that specific team will most likely have an increase in fan interest and soccer is so popular in the U.K. that viewership will never decrease that dramatically regardless of when a team wins early. Moreover, soccer is the most popular sport in Europe and the world and is one of the only major sport leagues in the U.K. unlike the many in the United States. (NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, etc.) This makes for more of sports fans' attention focused on the premier league and a lower chance of a decrease in fan interest due to an early champion in the league.
2. I think that in every other sport there is some sort of regulation in regards to a salary cap. Soccer's very different because, teams can spend loads of money with little no non regulation. Teams with the wealthiest owners can spend the most money and Manchester City is one of the most wealthy teams. They were able to spend some money this year to gain more talent to win the title. This to me is very unfair. Wealthy teams should not be able to spend unlimited money because other teams don't have as much money as them. Soccer should adapt the salary cap that other sports do because it is more fair for every team.
ReplyDelete2. I think there should be a limit on how much a club can spend in the transfer window because without one, whichever clubs bring in a greater deal of money have a much greater chance at bringing in superstars. Not that they're wrong for doing so, but most players go where the money is. For the teams that are less famous and come from smaller markets, their chances of ever becoming better is hindered greatly by their lack of money. They're never going to have that brand-name signing who can turn their club around simply because they don't have enough to offer. By adding a limit to spending, it evens the playing field a bit and gives these smaller teams at least a somewhat better chance at eventually becoming good or maybe getting that turnaround acquisition. It also makes it so general mangers and coaches are still important in molding a successful team. Like the article says, anyone can become good with a endless checkbook. One other thing to keep in mind is that the limit doesn't have to be all the way down to where the smaller teams max out, just at a point where its reasonable for a team to not become to stacked.
ReplyDelete2: I do think there should be a limit on how much a club can spend in the transfer window because then it comes down to how much money each club. It was an argument that Man City has more money so they won easily and this brings up the question if having a limit would help balance the league out. With this in mind, smaller teams do not have the ability to ever have a chance to compete teams with more $. With a limit on how much a club can spend, it would make the sport more well balanced and would make teams make interesting tactical decisions.
ReplyDelete3. I think that Manchester City winning the Premier League early affects the league in good and bad ways. I think that because they are dominating on the pitch, the amount of income their club makes will grow exponentially. However, with the disinterest of the other teams in the league quickly jolting in a stop, their revenue would decrease.
2) In the case I think that these teams should be able to spend as much money as they see fit for players within any window of time. The sports industry should be a capitalist industry not a socialist one. I do not think that they should be punished for their success even if they were able to spend more money than other teams. While reading this article, there was a movie that popped into my head and it was MoneyBall. This movie was about a baseball team that was faced with a limited budget. The team was able to be successful despite their funding because they changed they way in which they scouted players. I think the same can go for any sport. Teams with smaller budgets must become crafty with who they choose but if done right they can succeed.
ReplyDelete3) Im sure that people would like to see underdogs win but it also isn't right to somehow force that win. I do not think that this would hurt the sport of soccer in any way. I think that soccer is so popular for a few reasons. The first is that it is easy to understand in compares to other sports such as baseball. The second reason is that it is inexpensive and requires very little equipment. This is why it is played all around the world. No matter what team wins in a professional league it will do little to impact the sport in a negative matter.
I think there should be a limit on how much money a club can spend in the transfer. This is because any club can spend tons of money on star players to improve a club team and help out the rest of the lineup with scoring. In the article, they write "For all the money City spent in the past, they've played football as good as this--and fans have enjoyed a team that has, for the first time in years, found its identity." It is pretty clear that the team has a better chance at winning due to the money this club has spent. i think that Manchester City winning the club early on will grow increasingly. But, let's not forget that with other teams quickly waking in a stop, their revenue will come to a slow decline
ReplyDelete1. I think there should be a limit on how much money a club can spend on a transfer because it makes wealthier clubs much more powerful. It becomes unfair when one team can stack themselves with the best talent and start players just because they have more money. Less wealthy clubs struggle to attain good players due to not being able to pay them as much.
ReplyDelete2. I think people like to see a team consistently win, especially fans of that team. But, I do think other teams and their fans get frustrated with the fact that one team keeps winning. It gets boring to watch a game that you can predict the outcome of, and Manchester is seemingly unbeatable. They spent the most on their players, it sounds like they're just paying to win.
Should there be a limit of how much a club can spend in the transfer windows?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there should not be a limit to how much a club can spend on their players. If a club earns the money from ticket revenue and from the success in their past seasons they should have the right to buy top players. To limit the amount a team can spend on a player would only equalize the playing field. Sure this might be good for other programs but when has there ever been an equal playing field in any sport. Also, if there was a cap amount a team can spend on a player then eventually their wouldn’t be anything to differentiate if every team is offering you the same amount of money. Teams would eventually be very similar, talent wise, which would make the Premier league very boring to watch. If there weren’t any dynasties or no “team to beat” then there would be less interest in the league. Team fanatics might get upset because teams may not be able to get players because they cannot offer more money to the player.
2. I think there should be a limit on how much a club can spend in the transfer window because it gives this club a greater advantage over the other ones for an unfair reason. There is a disadvantage within all of the teams and adding a limit on how much a club can spend will make it more fair for all of the teams.
ReplyDelete3. I do not think that Manchester City wining the Premier League so early is necessarily bad for the Premier League and the entire sport of soccer, but it does get boring when the same team constantly wins over and over again.
2. I do think there should be a cap on how much a team can spend on players, similar to national leagues like the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Without one, it puts smaller market team's to a major disadvantage. With the current format, it isn't fair to say these teams don't deserve their accomplishments as they are using their market to the full potential, however I do think it is due for change.
ReplyDelete3. It isn't great for soccer in general but it doesn't seem like much can be done about it. I think in a perfect world (soccer speaking of course) a different team every year would have an equal chance to win a championship as much as any other team. This is obviously not going to happen for the lowest ranking teams however they should have just as much opportunity to improve as big market teams, like city.
There should be a cap on how much a team can spend in the transfer windows. If there is no cap, eventually teams will realize that if they wait, and save money, they can gain multiple key players in one transfer window. While this may make the team worse off in the short run, it makes the team much better over the long term. Take City as an example. They already spend a lot of money in the transfer windows now, and "there has been a consistent run of big-money signings arriving at the Etihad . . . and without that, City wouldn't be regular title hopefuls." The transfer windows are clearly giving teams the route to long-term dominance, and if there is no cap, then there is no way to stop an already-good team such as City from becoming an even better team, potentially even a dynasty.
ReplyDeleteMan City winning the Premier League isn't bad for soccer per se, however it could potentially damage viewership. Because their team has so many good players, there is not really anything stopping them from becoming more and more successful, just as the Cave and the Warriors did in the NBA.
ReplyDeleteShould there be a limit of how much a club can spend in the transfer windows?
I think that there for sure should be a salary cap for how much teams can spend in transfer windows. If you look at other major leagues, like the NFL, different teams win the superbowl all of the time. In european soccer, casual fans like myself only know about certain teams like Manchester City and United because they are the most dominant every year due to how much money they are able to shell out. Even the biased article points out “It's important to acknowledge the investment City have had. Since the takeover by Sheikh Mansour in September 2008, there has been a consistent run of big-money signings arriving at the Etihad -- some turning out to be good value, others less so -- and without that, City wouldn't be regular title hopefuls.” What they have done this year just would not have been possible without the money they have had, and they have been spending serious amounts of money since 2008! They have had 10 years to build this squad up, simply due to their money flow. With a salary cap, I think small teams could actually have a chance at thriving and making a name for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI actually believe that Pep's talent as a manager has been overstated. He has gone from Barca to Bayern to Manchester CIty, the three top teams in European football. On top of this, his tenure at Bayern was a failure due to his in ability to win a champions league trophy with such an amazing side. Winning the league with the Manchester City side he had this year should be expected.
I believe financial fair play must be enforced by FIFA. With teams like Manchester City and PSG being able to buy up every piece of talent that playing field is becoming less and less competitive. The 2015-2016 Premiere League season was one of the best in history due to the historic title run Leicester City made. With big money teams dominating world football these cinderella stories are becoming less and less frequent.
1. While money definately helped him, I think it should not make too much of a difference with his overall image. If he wasn't great to begin with, teams would not spend money improving him.
ReplyDelete2. No, a club should be able to use as much money as they want as like I said before, it doesn't make a huge difference on player performance.
3. While winning early by default may make fans lose interest in the rest of the season, it surely creates a lot of press and makes fans want to come back next year.
I do not think that Pep's talent is being overlooked. Even if you are able to spend as much money in the world on players, you still have to organize it so they can play well together and have good chemistry. I think that spending a huge amount of money makes people think twice, and definitely makes some people look over it, but it shouldn't be. There should be a limit of how much a team can spend. Otherwise, with an endless supply of money, there can become unfair teams. If a player is getting offered much more money to play on a better team, they will most likely take that deal. It should be regulated like it is in basketball and football. I think that it is good for the sport of soccer. It is not like they have been dominating for years and there has been nobody else close to them. If this happened repeatedly, then maybe it could become a problem, but for now, it is not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Pep Guardiola's talent is being overlooked just because the club spent a lot of money in the last transfer window. Yes, he is talented and should be able to showcase his talent but I also think that clubs are aloud to spend a lot of money in the transfer windows and he has to conform to be able to work well with that going on in the background. Furthermore, I personally believe that there should be a limit on how much a club can spend in the transfer windows. In practically every sport that one can think of there is a cap on one's salary and that makes the leagues more fair and effective. It creates an atmosphere where the wealthiest teams are the best teams and therefore doesn't give too many teams the opportunity to be successful. Lastly, I don't think that Manchester City winning the Premier League early was bad for the league or the entire sport of soccer. I think it creates good press for both and makes fans excited for the upcoming season and seeing what'll happen then.
ReplyDeleteShould there be a limit of how much a club can spend in the transfer windows?
ReplyDeleteI do think that clubs should have a cap of how much can be spent in the transfer window. I think that not having a cap, monopolizes the league based on the team who has the most to spend. Obviously, clubs with more money, are going to be able to go out and hire better players and coaches because of the edge that their funds has. This creates a system in sports were the rich teams have more success than the teams that don't have as much money. I think that one of the great things about most professional sports in the US is that there is a cap in the majority of leagues. I think this makes for an even playing field and more entertaining games during the season as each team has their own star or stars but their is no team with an overwhelming amount of all stars to where it is unfair.
Is Manchester City winning the Premier League so early bad for the Premier League and the entire sport of soccer?
In an instance in which there was no cap on clubs , Man City won the Premier League very early in the season. I think this directly correlates with the issue of clubs not having a cap, since Man City is heavily funded and is a big name not only in soccer, but sports in general, they were able to go out and get the best players and coaching staff with money being no object. I think Man City winning the league so early shows that not having a salary cap is an unfair advantage for teams that have more money and is overall hurting the Premier League.
I do not think Pep Guardiola’s talent is being overlooked. In the ESPN article, it said that although he is working with some of the best players in the world, he has been able to train them better than any coach has. Even with the resources that he has, not every coach would be able to coach a winning team like he did. I think there should be a limit of how much a club can spend in each transfer window because it levels the playing field and prevents teams from spending excessive amounts to get the best roster. Lastly, I think that winning the Premier League so early is bad for the Premier League because they cannot sell as many tickets or have as many games as they would if they had one it later. I also think that them losing later would cause more tension and be more exciting for the fans which would be good for the Premier League.
ReplyDelete