#SportsDominance #EconomicCenters #USsports #Basketball #Football
Why aren’t teams from the economic centers of the United States, such as New York, dominant in basketball or American football? ππ
When it comes to major sports in the United States, the dominance of teams from economic centers such as New York in basketball and American football is a topic of great interest. The question often arises – why aren’t these teams the clear frontrunners, given their financial prowess and access to resources? Let’s dive into the factors that contribute to the distribution of titles among cities or regions in these sports.
The Structure of American Sports Leagues
In order to understand the lack of dominance by teams from economic centers in the US, we need to consider the structure of American sports leagues. Unlike many other countries, US sports leagues are designed to foster competitive balance and parity among teams. The following elements play a crucial role in shaping this structure:
Salary Cap: Major sports leagues in the US, such as the NBA and NFL, implement a salary cap. This means that teams are limited in how much they can spend on player salaries, thereby preventing wealthier teams from simply outspending their competitors to build dominant rosters.
Draft System: The draft system in US sports allows the weakest teams from the previous season to have top picks in the annual player draft. This mechanism is aimed at redistributing talent and giving struggling teams the opportunity to acquire promising young players, thereby strengthening their rosters.
Revenue Sharing: US sports leagues also engage in revenue sharing, where a portion of the teams’ overall revenue is pooled and then redistributed among all the teams. This helps to level the playing field and prevent wealthier teams from gaining a significant financial advantage.
Competitive Culture: American sports culture places a strong emphasis on competition and fair play. This mindset, combined with the aforementioned structural elements, contributes to a landscape where dominance by teams from economic centers is not as pronounced as in other countries.
The Nature of Basketball and American Football
In addition to the structural aspects of US sports leagues, the nature of basketball and American football also plays a role in the distribution of titles among cities or regions. Let’s explore some key considerations for each sport:
Basketball: The NBA is known for its high level of individual talent and the impact that star players can have on a team’s success. While economic centers like New York have historically been home to competitive basketball teams, the influence of superstar athletes and the aforementioned competitive balance measures ensures that dominance is not easily achieved.
American Football: The NFL’s emphasis on strategic team play and the physical nature of the sport make it less conducive to sustained dominance by a single team or city. Additionally, the NFL’s structure, including its relatively small number of regular-season games and single-elimination playoff format, contributes to a scenario where the balance of power can shift more readily among teams.
Cultural and Demographic Factors
Beyond the structural and nature-related aspects of US sports, cultural and demographic factors also come into play when examining the distribution of titles. Consider the following points:
Fan Support: American sports fans are known for their passionate support of their teams, regardless of their location or economic standing. This creates an environment where teams from a variety of cities can attract dedicated fan bases, contributing to a more even distribution of success.
Urban Rivalries: Many major metropolitan areas in the US have multiple sports teams competing across different leagues. This leads to intense intra-city rivalries, further diluting the potential for a single economic center to dominate across multiple sports.
Geographic Diversity: The vast geographic expanse of the United States gives rise to a wide array of cities and regions that can produce competitive sports teams. This diversity ensures that success in basketball and American football is not monopolized by teams from a select few economic centers.
In conclusion, the distribution of titles among cities or regions in US basketball and American football is influenced by a combination of structural, nature-related, and cultural factors. The intentional design of US sports leagues to promote competitive balance, the unique nature of each sport, and the diverse cultural landscape all contribute to a scenario where teams from economic centers do not exhibit the same level of dominance seen in other countries. This aspect of American sports adds to the excitement and unpredictability of competitions, creating a dynamic and engaging landscape for fans and athletes alike.
The biggest reason is probably salary caps. Teams have a set pool of money to spend on salaries so teams in big media markets with tons of revenue can’t just sign all the best players by making them insane offers other teams can’t match.
a lot of American sports like basketball and football have salary caps. Teams are only allowed to spend a certain fixed amount on players. Equipment is standardized for the sport, so investing money in equipment shouldn’t give an advantage. So higher financial resources don’t really matter.
American sports leagues actively try to prevent domination by restricting spending on players and giving worse-performing teams more opportunities to sign promising young players.
As far as I know, enforced parity isnβt really a thing in European soccer.
theres a few elements here. the first is that in american sports, teams cannot fall in/out of minor leagues, and thus maintain their relevance even if they have failing years. this, in addition to broadcast deals and powerful leagues, evens out the income. this is especially true in the NFL, where even the poorest performing teams have higher profits than many of the best soccer clubs
the second and more obvious element is that the leagues, which have more consistent teams and an interest in balance, have put in place measures that stop the richest teams from simply spending more for players. this manifests most obviously again in the NFL, which has a strict salary cap that completely prevents teams from spending above a certain amount. less obviously, leagues like the MLB and NBA have luxury taxes, which make spending above the cap more and more prohibitive. while this does not stop spending over the cap, it makes it much less effective
the last element is the draft. new players entering these leagues coming from college are mostly forced to enter through that league’s draft, which allows for teams to pick players in order. while players arent usually /forced/ to play for the team that drafts them, its usually a de facto requirement. the drafts are each ordered to either benefit the team that lost the most, or is otherwise random, and the end result is that even the worst teams have a reasonable chance to get access to upcoming talent
The New York Yankees, LA Lakers, Chicago Bulls, Dallas Cowboys, and San Francisco 49s are historically among the best teams in their respective sports, and represent the 5 wealthiest cities in the USA.
The Yankees won about 1/4 World Series, Lakers about 1/4 of the Championships, Dallas has the best winning percentage, and Dallas and the 49ers most Superbowl appearances at 8, with both tied second wins at 5.
Titles aren’t really that evenly distributed. For instance, LA Lakers and Boston Celtics make up about half of all NBA titties. New York Yanks are 1/4, and the next 3 teams make up about 1/4th.
The wealthiest cities *do* win the most in the big leagues.
2 of my stats were off. Dallas has the best percentage, and they tie with SF for second most Superbowl wins.
Professional sports in the United States exist (largely) as a cartel to make money for the owners. Hence you don’t see the relegation system over here, as that can mess with the money. As part of that, most professional sports have made it part of their rules that cap spending on player salaries.
It’s somewhat similar to the Financial Fair Play rules being enforced in European football right now. Only instead of being tied to revenue, there tends to be a max limit on what can be spent, so richer clubs can’t outspend the others. Additionally, European football pays out based league position. US sports tend to pay out equally, with the exception you get a little bit more for premium TV games.
The US sport that has the closest structure to European football is baseball. And similar to football, you’re beginning to see the concentration of elite talent in the biggest markets that will support that spending. Similar to European football, the beginnings of professional baseball dates back to the late 1880s. I’m not sure if that’s a coincidence in the financial structure or if they’re related.
They are. Your premise is incorrect.
The NFL teams with the most championships are:
1. New England Patriots (Boston) – 6
2. Pittsburgh Steelers – 6
3. Dallas Cowboys – 5
4. San Francisco 49ers – 5
5. Green Bay Packers – 4
6. New York Giants – 4
Green Bay is an anomaly rather than the norm. The 5 other teams with 4 or more championships are all from major urban centers.
The MLB teams with the most championships are:
1. New York Yankees – 27
2. St. Louis Cardinals – 11
3. Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics – 9 (5 in Philly between 1910-1930, 4 in Oakland between 1972 and 1989)
4. Boston Red Sox – 9
5. New York/San Francisco Giants – 8 (5 in NY between 1905 and 1954, 3 in SF between 2010 and 2014)
6. Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers – 7 (1 in Brooklyn in 1955, 6 in LA from 1959 to 2020)
All 6 MLB teams with 7 or more World Series are from major urban centers.
Two words: salary cap. All US sports leagues except Major League Baseball have a salary cap in place that limits the amount of money that teams are allowed to spend on player salaries, which results in each team having more or less the same opportunity to pay for and attract talent. And the salary caps in US sports are true, real caps. Not that half-assed “financial fair play” garbage that does nothing but lock in the financial advantage of the big clubs that UEFA enforces. No, a simple dollar and cent limit on player spending.
Major League Baseball is the one exception, thus to no one’s surprise the most successful club is the New York Yankees.
I donβt think this is true. Teams homed in cities with metro area populations greater than 4 million have won 8 of the last 10 super bowls and 7 of the last 10 nba championships.
If thereβs a difference, itβs that European countries usually have only have one city with that kind of population.
And Green Bay is a weird special case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions
It’s boring if the same teams win every year. The leagues don’t care who wins, they just want people to watch, so they do things like set salary caps and reward poor-performing teams with higher draft picks. US sports also don’t have relegation; no matter how badly a team performs, they don’t get kicked out of the league.
Green Bay admittedly is still quite a bit of an outlier; it’s far and away the smallest metropolitan area with a professional sports team (Buffalo is a distant second) and the reason they still exist is a bit of a fluke; most other teams which started in small cities like Green Bay move to larger cities once they get successful, but the Packers are community-owned so they’ve never moved.
The main reason why North american teams adopted the dispositions everyone else talked about, is because there is no promotion/relegation to another league. With a guaranteed stability between the teams, they have incentives to even out the playing field, and the larger the leagues grow, the less weight the top 2-3 revenue teams have to stop this process. Now even the big markets don’t mind so much anymore, because they know they’ll keep making mad money anyway, and they are forced to spend less for it.
The draft means even bad seasons will have the fans invested in “a rebuild” and keep them spending on hype, and if sport success comes the revenues will be through the roof, without the need to spend more than everyone else.
Drafts and salary caps. In Europe, teams develop their own talent. Any player you see on a European pitch was affiliated with a team by the age of eight. Wealthier teams have stronger academies which develop stronger talent, and those that don’t have strong academies are simply able to buy talent. There is no draft that distributes talent amongst the clubs. Either you spend a decade developing an 8-year-old into a pro, or you have to buy the finished product from another club. There is also no salary cap, so wealthier clubs can simply outspend poorer clubs.
American sports leagues are set up very differently from European ones:
1. Players can only enter the league via a draft, and the worst teams get to select first every year and get the best new players.
2. There are strict salary caps. Some leagues don’t allow teams to go over at all, while others impose strict penalties. So beyond a certain point having more money doesn’t help.
These, plus many more minor rules, ensure that there is parity in the league, and no team stays bad for too long.
It is worth noting though that despite all of this teams from bigger cities do tend to win more in general than smaller ones even in America. It just isn’t as blatant as in European leagues where the same 2-3 teams will just dominate forever.
do they have draft for football(soccer) leagues?
Theyβve got other things to do? Team fanaticism, and therefore high attendance and sales of merch, is higher in smaller places where the team becomes iconic. So it can be more profitable and more worthwhile to invest in players and coaches.
Of course, not all smaller cities react this way, so you get migrating franchisesβ¦
Because of socialism.
The ultra wealthy, megacapitalists who owns sports teams have set up a socialist utopia for themselves. Especially in the NFL. They share revenue so that the most popular teams and least popular teams get an equal cut of the pie when it comes to television profits, which are massive. Not only that, but the worse you are, the higher you pick in the draft, so you get better chances at better players. Finally, by colluding together to cap total salaries, teams from richer areas, can’t spend more to obtain better players. As a result, there’s no real economic or competitive advantage to be from a highly populated area.
This is less true in some sports like baseball where the salary, cap is much weaker, and where revenue is not shared as equally. In those sports, teams from Los Angeles and New York, for example, have tended to spend far more than teams from smaller, poorer markets. It’s not a perfect correlation, but it definitely exists. And it tends to show up in the results.
But never forget that the NFL is one of the great examples of socialism in the United States.
What’s the point of having individual city teams when rarely any players are actually home grown in that city? As someone who doesn’t watch team sports, I’m confused why fans are so ardently obsessed with their local teams as if it embodies a core spirit of the people of the city, most if not all of those players aren’t from there. They don’t “represent” you.
Shitty owners with other interests, salery caps, and competition from secondary teams all play a huge part.
In New York, especially, the Yankees, Knicks, and Rangers owners are primarily arena conglomerates that also own TV channels. Less so the Yankees, but the Knicks and Rangers, are often treated as not much more than content sources and to fill arena time outside of a random good year here or there.
The Jets, and other most teams, are often owned by multinational corporations. In this case, the Johnson family of Johnson and Johnson fame. The sports team is secondary snd seen as a luxury and status symbol rather than purely an investment.
A lot of the owners are dynasties, passed down families. With some family members having a better grasp of things than others. For example, the Mara family has owned the Giants for 3 generations.
A good example of the dynasty dynamics can be seen in Detroit with the Lions (Ford), Pistons (Davison/Compuware), and the Wings and Tigers (Illitch/Little Caesars Pizza). Some dynasty members sucked as team owners, like Chris Illitch, compared to his dad Mike or the elder Fords compared to Sheila Hamp.
Both markets also have teams that are considered secondary and sometimes compete in a different division. The Jets, Nets, Islanders, and Mets in NYC. The Angels, Chargers (you could argue both they and the Rams are also secondary to both college teams and the now Vegas Raiders in LA), Clippers, and Ducks in LA metro
The Jets, Chargers, Raiders, and Clippers especially are plagued with horrible, incompetent, and/or corrupt ownership and management for years.
But they still compete for resources and fan and media attention from the crosstown competition.
Most modern sports leagues in the US have implemented salary caps for exactly this reason. It prevents snowballing from teams that could otherwise basically just buy championships.
For football there is a salary cap. Teams are limited on the amount of money they can spend and it’s the same across the board. So being richer doesn’t mean they can buy better players.
In baseball, you can. It’s not a salary cap, but a luxury tax. If you go above this much salary you must pay a fine of x dollars for every y dollar you go over. Some teams, like the Yankees, use this every year to try and be good and make the playoffs. It’s just that baseball is hard and when you play 162 regular season games, things will happen. The Dodgers just spent nearly a billion dollars on players this off season. Well see how it works for them, it hasn’t worked well in the past.
Have you heard of the Yankees?
Socialism is acceptable in sports because it gives this result.
It manifests in salary caps, and shared revenue.
Here is a funny thing about this. There was even a freakanomics podcast about this.
The leagues in the US, NFL, NBA, NHL, are set up in a very socialist way. They are actually basically cartels. This means that every team wins (economically), no matter what. They also have rules to make sure no one team stays dominant and no one team stays terrible. Of course there are some exceptions, but the general idea is that most teams can expect to have the resources to succeed given right decisions are made.
The soccer leagues in most major european countries are the opposite. They are set up more closely to the capitalist model, where money means everything. This is why you see so many teams in major cities succeed. Because of their economic power, they are able to sustain strong teams. You also see a deviation of this rule when a foreign entity such as Saudi Arabia, inject a ton of cash into a team from Newcastle. They suddenly become really good. This type of thing cannot be done in the USU leagues. Money doesn’t just buy success. It has to be spent well as well (because of the salary cap).
β¦because thatβs now how competition works???
I think out of all the points, there are significantly less top/pro US teams and they have a giant catch zone for fans, potentially multiple states. The NFL or NBA are about the size of a single top European league in terms of teams, but over a country that is more comparable to Western Europe as a whole. None are really impacted by smaller fan bases or other geographical restrictions. All of them are somewhat comparably big.
Historically, football (soccer) teams core support lives on their part of the city, largely in walking distance. Hell, a number of cities are divided between teams. Bigger cities, more supporters, more appealing to players, more money to spend, etc… up to a certainly point anyway. Doesn’t matter how good smaller team makes it if their city is small, the room for expansion is low, inbound international travel is awkward, etc. Teams directly tied to their very specific region are compromised in ways an NFL or NBA team would never be.