High prices and lower attendance by Premier League...

[Captain Hilts]

This is an interesting article because of the concern expressed by team and league officials about ticket prices.

It's also a foretaste of what's going to happen here vis a vis pricing: sliding scales. Tickets to see the Red Sox play the Yankees will be sold for a higher price than tickets to see the Sox play the Mariners. That kind of thing.

Let me know what you think:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,,2020901,00.html

[northzax]

1. what's remarkable to me

looking at some of the numbers, is that people say that MLS doesn't draw fans, but a team like DC United or the Galaxy outdraws a club like Blackburn.

And yes, they should lower ticket prices. the Premiership is in danger of becoming a four team league, with a few hangers on- and they are in danger of becoming such a global league that there really isn't any development of English football at the same time. Look at Chelsea, who despite winning two titles has apparently lost 100 million pounds over the past three years. this is fine nad dandy with someone like Abromovitch writing checks, but it means that other teams simply can't compete. and that is dangerous for the deep support of the league. and then take a suprise team like Reading (go Royals, beat Devils, sorry) even having a second straight dream season, how long can they keep it up? can they keep getting developmental players, when a team like Arsenal can pay millions of pounds to keep people on the developmental squad? Where will the next gen talent for less wealthy teams come from, when the big four simply buy whatever they want to stock the larder? (aside: did you see the Gunners' bench today? jesus, where do they get these guys, average age of 20.3 and they took a first rank Chelsea squad to the wall.) where is the chance for Reading to compete on the open market for new talent? Madjeski can't write the checks that the Glazers and Abramovitch can. in two years, will they have been able to replenish themselves, or will they be fighting West Ham for promotion again?

[Captain Hilts]

2. Kinda like MLB with the Yanks, Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Cubs and Braves...

and everyone else.

That's really interesting about Chelsea.

I've always thought that in the US, the NBA should be dramatically expanded because there actually are a lot of really good basketball players, if the NCAA is any test. This would make the teams seem more locally-oriented. English football used to be like that too, and still kind of is with a lot of cross town rivalries. Here, in Bethesda, I saw a car with a ManCity bumper sticker. He sure was thrilled I knew what it was!

[northzax]

3. true, but even MLB

has a better player sharing method and a soft salary cap. you can build a team on the cheap through a decent long term drafting strategy (see Oakland, Florida, St. Louis) and compete, if only for a year or two. The Premier League has no such opportunity. I mean only four teams have ever won the Premiership (true, it's only 14 years old) and one (Blackburn) on a fluke dream season. Compare to the last 14 years of MLB, when the title has been won by 9 different teams and if you go back 20 years you have 13 different winners. Of course, part of this is the playoff scheme, instead of the regular-season champion idea.

and for the record, I would rather shag a bucket with a big hole in it, than spend a single day as a ManCity fan!