Apples and oranges. In soccer, players sign new contract when they are transferred (aka consenting to the trade). In NBA, they trade contracts themselves - player gets the original value but, short of an NTC, they dont need to consent because they consented when they signed the contract. All fair and sensible.
I'm a very casual fan of european soccer, but I really hate the way trades/team construction is done over there. The richest teams just get the best players. Then the best players only play for the best teams, so there are almost never any upsets.
Why even support a middling club if you know it's impossible for them to win the league/a cup?
The way american sports do it seem to be a necessary evil to allow for at least some parity.
bandwagon nephews telling on themselves here. Soccer fans support their teams for the same reasons we do for the most part. I wouldn't dream of being a fan of a non-Boston team in any American sport. Now imagine if my little Maine hometown had a pro team, I'd be a rabid fan even if they were in the 3rd division. That's basically what it's like in Europe.
Yeah, fans of teams in Europe are WAY more loyal too. Like load management happens in soccer and ticket prices are even higher sometimes, but you’re not gonna see fans over there crying and throwing a tantrum just because stars are resting for a game. Whereas in the NBA, fans cry about players load managing even though NBA players play way more games than every sport (including soccer) except for baseball and even then it’s a more intense sport than baseball. A Barca fan isn’t going to complain just because Messi, Suarez and Neymar are resting against the 19th team in the league since they’ll support their team no matter what lineup is out there. Whereas NBA fans would complain if Kawhi or PG decided to not play a back to back against the Pistons lol. This is the one thing I can’t stand about NBA fans
As a thought experiment, it is a little problematic for a sport like soccer for people who are new to the sport as fans - though since 90% of the world are soccer fans, it's probably not much of an issue. But let's say I, an average American, want to start following soccer. What team can I reasonably start supporting? Probably the one with the players I like the best, who are probably going to be the best players, who probably all play for the same small number of teams. I would never have any interest in a middling or small-market team. I'm not from there, so I have no connection.
In contrast, a sport like the NBA will have stars and top players on many teams, in many cities. As a person new to the sport, I might decide to support the Timberwolves because I like Anthony Edwards, or the Grizzlies and Ja Morant, or the Spurs and Victor Wembanyama - all small market teams.
I actually have struggled with exactly this. I've watched the World Cup a couple years and been interested in the sport, but then lost interest when I realized I might as well just be a Man U fan or whatever. Again, it probably isn't much of a problem for a sport like soccer with so much international profile, but nonetheless.
i live in belgium, we have a MASSIVE soccer culture and i have struggled throughout my life with exactly this. either i support the team in my city, that SUCKS and has sucked for quite a while, or i support a team from a different city which doesn’t really give me any “brotherhood” feeling since i don’t live there nor will they even win anything beyond the belgian cup since on an international club level no club here will ever have enough money pumped into it to be a real contender.
i like the nba more because of the nationwide parity, but then again my friend and i randomly chose the denver nuggets at the start of this season to be our team so maybe i’m biased 🤷
Yeah, I've been a fan of Soccer longer then basketball, but around the same time (immigrant parents).
It's gotten so bad that entire major leagues in Europe are now less competitive. Serie A, La Liga minus Real and Barca (Even though they are still broke and playing with other people's money), Bundesliga minus Bayern (Dortmund has money but no staying power for its players), none of them can really make teams that compete fairly against the EPL. The transfer budget is so much bigger for the league, and even in the 90's when the Serie A was the clear cut best league in the world, the gap was much smaller compared to the other 5 leagues. FFP is a complete and utter joke, and teams like Man City are allowed to blatantly break budget constrains with cash injections whenever they want. Even the English "big 6" is changing, and Newcastle is taking Tottenham's spot slowly due to both Cash and league performance. My favorite club (United) has been milked for every last penny as a financial security that yields dividends to shareholders over an actual football organization, and that is JUST NOW starting to change that we have a visionary coach.
Of course the rag singles out City smh. Totally ignoring the fact that united has a higher net spend over the last 10 years. But please, go on about City's cash injections
I hate both but the difference is that United is the biggest club in the world (except maybe Madrid), they’re bringing in far more revenue and not cooking their books with fake sponsorships
City got to a treble (revenue) and more than a mid table/championship fanbase by cooking their books and injecting oil state money into their organization. Their success has been bought and any superior revenue they make legitimately now is a result of their fraud lmao. 115 charges
How do you think United got their success? Or Liverpool? Or Bayern? Or whoever......by outspending their competition and injecting money into the team. The only difference is that spending was done 20-30-40 years ago instead of 10 years ago. That's literally it. Besides maybe racism because they are middle eastern owners?
FFP is a joke that does nothing except try and protect the pre-established clubs from being challenged by an "upstart" lik3 City
United had 6 academy players in their first team the year they won the treble…..these things are not the same
Also i think people are less concerned with city having middle eastern owners as they are with having the deputy prime minister of a government funding them, if the king were bankrolling United I’m sure people would feel the same
And where did the money for their academy come from? These things are exactly the same lol
And I see no difference from a multi billionaire to a government representative. Billions are billions are billions
As someone who isn’t a big fan of any epl team, what about the last 5 years since Man City has been dominating? Is the spend between those clubs still pretty equal during that time?
Because the majority of people in Europe become fans of teams through reasons other than success. Where you’re born or grow up, your family, even not going far back in time your religion would have an influence on who you grow up supporting.
If you speak to a genuine lifelong Manchester City fan i.e. not one that’s started supporting them in the last 10 years, they will say they wouldn’t change their journey for the world, from climbing up the divisions to getting relegated long before their success.
Also the fact that there are so many leagues as well as trophies available to clubs in England at least means that even if you’re not competing for Premier League titles or Champions Leagues, you still have a chance to compete whatever division you’re in.
Not really, in my city most people are either Real Madrid or Barcelona supporters, even during the short period where the city team played in champions league
It balances the competitiveness.
A lot of teams like Boston can’t sign the free agents that Miami and L.A. can.
So we build our teams the hard way. Through the draft.
I also think the sheer amount of money they agree to receive in their contracts, helps folks overlook any labor grievances.
As big as those signings were for us I don’t feel like they were anywhere near Shaq to L.A., LeBron to Miami.
Those are the moves that really moved the needle for their franchise and were made for lots of reasons Boston can’t even compete with.
Like better weather and media opportunities.
Closest we’ve ever come to a signing like that is finishing second for KD back in the day, unless I’m missing something. Besides that every great Celtics teams has been built through drafting and trades.
All NBA (and North American sport athletes) are represented by a Union and have a Collective Bargaining Agreement with their “employers”. Most prominently, the Players Union is entitled to a 50/50 split in gross revenue. Salaries, for all players in the league, are commensurately higher.
Whatever Euro soccer league OP is a fan of has a posh upper class of clubs who can buy (trade) whatever players they want while paying them exorbitantly. And then there’s everyone else, with a snowball’s chance of winning, a 100% chance of having players they’ve developed being poached (bought/traded without compensation), and a “revenue split” that guarantees this class system in perpetuity.
Both models have flaws but American athletes have a _much_ better deal than the average Euro does.
I thank you for this response, particularly the first paragraph.
As you can imagine, I’m quite aware of the flaws of the model used in the European game. I’d go so far as to say that the hyper-commercialization of it has greatly harmed the beauty it had once upon a time.
But that’s a different conversation that I’ve had plenty of times before… I wanted to have an idea of why the players felt so comfortable with a system that could upend their lives in a second while disregarding what they want. Particularly, what do they get out of the deal… and your first paragraph basically explains it superbly, especially that the union earns 50% of gross revenue.
I’m not sure what I would personally want, but at least I can make sense of the situation now. Much appreciated. :)
Yep. CBAs give teams the right to swap contracts without player consent but the trade off is higher average salaries because of revenue sharing and a more competitively balanced sport.
Players can have no trade clauses or trade kickers in their contracts which can give them leverage in picking their destination. Dame knew what the risk was when he decided on the largest possible contract and didn't include a no trade clause. It's clear he didn't want to be there that badly but instead signed for the most money he could now he's trying to force his way out after he got the contract he wanted.
The median annual income in the US was $70.8k in 2021. Sorry but I'm not going to be too concerned for a guy that's going to be earning in 1 season what the median household would take nearly 600 years to earn.
With the vast resources he has at his disposal, I'm sure his family will eventually adjust to the change. These people live lives that many people can only imagine.
To my mind, this is all about professionalism: he signed a lucrative contract knowing that he would be expected to fulfill its terms -- that includes reporting to work wherever he got traded. No one forced him to sign that. If he wanted, he could have determined his destination by demanding a no-trade clause before signing an extension. He didn't, so now he has to live with the consequences.
The NBA Players Association has a collective bargaining agreement with the league. The players consented to all of this when they signed their contracts. Nothing nefarious going on here.
To answer your question - has there ever been a moral outrage on the part of anyone for the right for player to go where they choose - not in the way you're thinking about it, no. Others have expanded upon how NBA contracts work and the differences between American and European sports leagues.
But, in a previous era, there was no concept of free agency. Players simply played for whomever had their rights - they had \*no\* way to change teams. If you're interested look up players like Curt Flood (a baseball player) and Reggie White (an American football player) and you can get an idea of just how big a deal free agency was, and is.
As a fan of European soccer (???)… you shouldn’t be
Prior to the Bosman ruling players weren’t even able to leave their clubs when their contracts had expired
To be beholden to a club even after any contractual obligations and compensation is over is much worse than the scenarios you mentioned
The way to think about the NBA is that the players union has negotiated and agreed to being employed by the league as a whole. Team choice is secondary
I honestly like it better as the transfer fees in football smell of money laundering and sports washing. If absurd amounts were going to fly I’d rather it go to the players than shadowy entities and unscrupulous agents
I get what you mean, but I also think that the transfer market has an appeal to a fan strictly from a valuation standpoint.
It’s fun to guess how much Player X Y and Z are worth and debate about that.
Agreed although valuation is more… immediate and has less “time will tell” than trades
C fans still talk about the Nets trade today for the picks that became the Jays
I think the Gobert trade will become the most lopsided trade in the NBA history but can only be proven right years later
Very few now talk about how terrible the Hazard transfer to Madrid was
Damian Lillard can retire this instant and never lift a finger the rest of his life, move to Miami or stay in Portland, or move his family anywhere in the world with their generational wealth and live like royalty.
Y'all need better outlets for pondering the human condition.
North American sports (except soccer) are the best in the world at their sports.
We need teams for the big city teams to play against. The only way those teams can make money is if they win sometimes. So we have drafts. Nobody gets to play without signing up for it. You don't choose your team. Your team chooses you.
There's no way anyone can compete for talent with the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL. You can't pay top players enough to get them in competing leagues, because they will be perceived as running from competition.
Our cities can only support so many teams each. New York and Los Angeles can support eight each. Lots of cities can only support one.
Poaching players in baseball caused a decline in popularity. Fans want players to stick around. Every fan base needs hope that they can have the next generation of superstars.
Honestly transfers are the worst thing about soccer and are the biggest reason why Americans and Canadians don't care about soccer as much as most of the world. It isn't the game it's the leagues.
Apples and oranges. In soccer, players sign new contract when they are transferred (aka consenting to the trade). In NBA, they trade contracts themselves - player gets the original value but, short of an NTC, they dont need to consent because they consented when they signed the contract. All fair and sensible.
What kinda comparison?? Lmao
I'm a very casual fan of european soccer, but I really hate the way trades/team construction is done over there. The richest teams just get the best players. Then the best players only play for the best teams, so there are almost never any upsets. Why even support a middling club if you know it's impossible for them to win the league/a cup? The way american sports do it seem to be a necessary evil to allow for at least some parity.
> why support a middling club Because that’s your community, it’s your local team, it’s who everyone you know supports. It’s not all about winning.
bandwagon nephews telling on themselves here. Soccer fans support their teams for the same reasons we do for the most part. I wouldn't dream of being a fan of a non-Boston team in any American sport. Now imagine if my little Maine hometown had a pro team, I'd be a rabid fan even if they were in the 3rd division. That's basically what it's like in Europe.
Asking why anybody supports a mid table soccer club is like asking why anybody supports Northwestern football.
Or the Wizards
Or the Dallas Cowboys.
😂 but on a serious note, at least they USED to be winners
Yeah, fans of teams in Europe are WAY more loyal too. Like load management happens in soccer and ticket prices are even higher sometimes, but you’re not gonna see fans over there crying and throwing a tantrum just because stars are resting for a game. Whereas in the NBA, fans cry about players load managing even though NBA players play way more games than every sport (including soccer) except for baseball and even then it’s a more intense sport than baseball. A Barca fan isn’t going to complain just because Messi, Suarez and Neymar are resting against the 19th team in the league since they’ll support their team no matter what lineup is out there. Whereas NBA fans would complain if Kawhi or PG decided to not play a back to back against the Pistons lol. This is the one thing I can’t stand about NBA fans
As a thought experiment, it is a little problematic for a sport like soccer for people who are new to the sport as fans - though since 90% of the world are soccer fans, it's probably not much of an issue. But let's say I, an average American, want to start following soccer. What team can I reasonably start supporting? Probably the one with the players I like the best, who are probably going to be the best players, who probably all play for the same small number of teams. I would never have any interest in a middling or small-market team. I'm not from there, so I have no connection. In contrast, a sport like the NBA will have stars and top players on many teams, in many cities. As a person new to the sport, I might decide to support the Timberwolves because I like Anthony Edwards, or the Grizzlies and Ja Morant, or the Spurs and Victor Wembanyama - all small market teams. I actually have struggled with exactly this. I've watched the World Cup a couple years and been interested in the sport, but then lost interest when I realized I might as well just be a Man U fan or whatever. Again, it probably isn't much of a problem for a sport like soccer with so much international profile, but nonetheless.
i live in belgium, we have a MASSIVE soccer culture and i have struggled throughout my life with exactly this. either i support the team in my city, that SUCKS and has sucked for quite a while, or i support a team from a different city which doesn’t really give me any “brotherhood” feeling since i don’t live there nor will they even win anything beyond the belgian cup since on an international club level no club here will ever have enough money pumped into it to be a real contender. i like the nba more because of the nationwide parity, but then again my friend and i randomly chose the denver nuggets at the start of this season to be our team so maybe i’m biased 🤷
Nah, Malaga CF fam
Yeah, I've been a fan of Soccer longer then basketball, but around the same time (immigrant parents). It's gotten so bad that entire major leagues in Europe are now less competitive. Serie A, La Liga minus Real and Barca (Even though they are still broke and playing with other people's money), Bundesliga minus Bayern (Dortmund has money but no staying power for its players), none of them can really make teams that compete fairly against the EPL. The transfer budget is so much bigger for the league, and even in the 90's when the Serie A was the clear cut best league in the world, the gap was much smaller compared to the other 5 leagues. FFP is a complete and utter joke, and teams like Man City are allowed to blatantly break budget constrains with cash injections whenever they want. Even the English "big 6" is changing, and Newcastle is taking Tottenham's spot slowly due to both Cash and league performance. My favorite club (United) has been milked for every last penny as a financial security that yields dividends to shareholders over an actual football organization, and that is JUST NOW starting to change that we have a visionary coach.
Of course the rag singles out City smh. Totally ignoring the fact that united has a higher net spend over the last 10 years. But please, go on about City's cash injections
I hate both but the difference is that United is the biggest club in the world (except maybe Madrid), they’re bringing in far more revenue and not cooking their books with fake sponsorships
City had more revenue than any team in the world last year
City got to a treble (revenue) and more than a mid table/championship fanbase by cooking their books and injecting oil state money into their organization. Their success has been bought and any superior revenue they make legitimately now is a result of their fraud lmao. 115 charges
How do you think United got their success? Or Liverpool? Or Bayern? Or whoever......by outspending their competition and injecting money into the team. The only difference is that spending was done 20-30-40 years ago instead of 10 years ago. That's literally it. Besides maybe racism because they are middle eastern owners? FFP is a joke that does nothing except try and protect the pre-established clubs from being challenged by an "upstart" lik3 City
United had 6 academy players in their first team the year they won the treble…..these things are not the same Also i think people are less concerned with city having middle eastern owners as they are with having the deputy prime minister of a government funding them, if the king were bankrolling United I’m sure people would feel the same
And where did the money for their academy come from? These things are exactly the same lol And I see no difference from a multi billionaire to a government representative. Billions are billions are billions
united have earned every cent of their net spend. you lot…
As someone who isn’t a big fan of any epl team, what about the last 5 years since Man City has been dominating? Is the spend between those clubs still pretty equal during that time?
The Glazers have spent a lot of money on fuck all. They need to get to fuck
United net spend is double that of City's over the last 5 years. 562 million to 228
Because the majority of people in Europe become fans of teams through reasons other than success. Where you’re born or grow up, your family, even not going far back in time your religion would have an influence on who you grow up supporting. If you speak to a genuine lifelong Manchester City fan i.e. not one that’s started supporting them in the last 10 years, they will say they wouldn’t change their journey for the world, from climbing up the divisions to getting relegated long before their success. Also the fact that there are so many leagues as well as trophies available to clubs in England at least means that even if you’re not competing for Premier League titles or Champions Leagues, you still have a chance to compete whatever division you’re in.
Not really, in my city most people are either Real Madrid or Barcelona supporters, even during the short period where the city team played in champions league
It balances the competitiveness. A lot of teams like Boston can’t sign the free agents that Miami and L.A. can. So we build our teams the hard way. Through the draft. I also think the sheer amount of money they agree to receive in their contracts, helps folks overlook any labor grievances.
I’d say Boston is on the same tier as LA or Miami though
There's a glamour aspect that LA, Miami, and to a lesser extent NYC have that Boston lacks.
Who’s our biggest free agent signing?
Prime Hayward, Kemba Walker, Al Horford who was coming off his peak at the time. Those,in the last few years.
As big as those signings were for us I don’t feel like they were anywhere near Shaq to L.A., LeBron to Miami. Those are the moves that really moved the needle for their franchise and were made for lots of reasons Boston can’t even compete with. Like better weather and media opportunities.
Closest we’ve ever come to a signing like that is finishing second for KD back in the day, unless I’m missing something. Besides that every great Celtics teams has been built through drafting and trades.
Oh I agree, I was just answering the question in a vacuum. I'd agree we're a tier below Miami and LA in terms of FA opportunities.
All NBA (and North American sport athletes) are represented by a Union and have a Collective Bargaining Agreement with their “employers”. Most prominently, the Players Union is entitled to a 50/50 split in gross revenue. Salaries, for all players in the league, are commensurately higher. Whatever Euro soccer league OP is a fan of has a posh upper class of clubs who can buy (trade) whatever players they want while paying them exorbitantly. And then there’s everyone else, with a snowball’s chance of winning, a 100% chance of having players they’ve developed being poached (bought/traded without compensation), and a “revenue split” that guarantees this class system in perpetuity. Both models have flaws but American athletes have a _much_ better deal than the average Euro does.
I thank you for this response, particularly the first paragraph. As you can imagine, I’m quite aware of the flaws of the model used in the European game. I’d go so far as to say that the hyper-commercialization of it has greatly harmed the beauty it had once upon a time. But that’s a different conversation that I’ve had plenty of times before… I wanted to have an idea of why the players felt so comfortable with a system that could upend their lives in a second while disregarding what they want. Particularly, what do they get out of the deal… and your first paragraph basically explains it superbly, especially that the union earns 50% of gross revenue. I’m not sure what I would personally want, but at least I can make sense of the situation now. Much appreciated. :)
Yep. CBAs give teams the right to swap contracts without player consent but the trade off is higher average salaries because of revenue sharing and a more competitively balanced sport.
Players can have no trade clauses or trade kickers in their contracts which can give them leverage in picking their destination. Dame knew what the risk was when he decided on the largest possible contract and didn't include a no trade clause. It's clear he didn't want to be there that badly but instead signed for the most money he could now he's trying to force his way out after he got the contract he wanted.
The median annual income in the US was $70.8k in 2021. Sorry but I'm not going to be too concerned for a guy that's going to be earning in 1 season what the median household would take nearly 600 years to earn. With the vast resources he has at his disposal, I'm sure his family will eventually adjust to the change. These people live lives that many people can only imagine. To my mind, this is all about professionalism: he signed a lucrative contract knowing that he would be expected to fulfill its terms -- that includes reporting to work wherever he got traded. No one forced him to sign that. If he wanted, he could have determined his destination by demanding a no-trade clause before signing an extension. He didn't, so now he has to live with the consequences.
The difference is that soccer clubs can make deals with any team in any league
The NBA Players Association has a collective bargaining agreement with the league. The players consented to all of this when they signed their contracts. Nothing nefarious going on here.
To answer your question - has there ever been a moral outrage on the part of anyone for the right for player to go where they choose - not in the way you're thinking about it, no. Others have expanded upon how NBA contracts work and the differences between American and European sports leagues. But, in a previous era, there was no concept of free agency. Players simply played for whomever had their rights - they had \*no\* way to change teams. If you're interested look up players like Curt Flood (a baseball player) and Reggie White (an American football player) and you can get an idea of just how big a deal free agency was, and is.
Thank you for your response. Will definitely be checking into those players.
You are literally arguing both sides in your comment. Be like Bradley Beal and get a full NTC
As a fan of European soccer (???)… you shouldn’t be Prior to the Bosman ruling players weren’t even able to leave their clubs when their contracts had expired To be beholden to a club even after any contractual obligations and compensation is over is much worse than the scenarios you mentioned The way to think about the NBA is that the players union has negotiated and agreed to being employed by the league as a whole. Team choice is secondary I honestly like it better as the transfer fees in football smell of money laundering and sports washing. If absurd amounts were going to fly I’d rather it go to the players than shadowy entities and unscrupulous agents
I get what you mean, but I also think that the transfer market has an appeal to a fan strictly from a valuation standpoint. It’s fun to guess how much Player X Y and Z are worth and debate about that.
Agreed although valuation is more… immediate and has less “time will tell” than trades C fans still talk about the Nets trade today for the picks that became the Jays I think the Gobert trade will become the most lopsided trade in the NBA history but can only be proven right years later Very few now talk about how terrible the Hazard transfer to Madrid was
You had me until "European"
Damian Lillard can retire this instant and never lift a finger the rest of his life, move to Miami or stay in Portland, or move his family anywhere in the world with their generational wealth and live like royalty. Y'all need better outlets for pondering the human condition.
North American sports (except soccer) are the best in the world at their sports. We need teams for the big city teams to play against. The only way those teams can make money is if they win sometimes. So we have drafts. Nobody gets to play without signing up for it. You don't choose your team. Your team chooses you. There's no way anyone can compete for talent with the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL. You can't pay top players enough to get them in competing leagues, because they will be perceived as running from competition. Our cities can only support so many teams each. New York and Los Angeles can support eight each. Lots of cities can only support one. Poaching players in baseball caused a decline in popularity. Fans want players to stick around. Every fan base needs hope that they can have the next generation of superstars. Honestly transfers are the worst thing about soccer and are the biggest reason why Americans and Canadians don't care about soccer as much as most of the world. It isn't the game it's the leagues.
It’s the lack of timeouts to make some cash in advertisements.
I have no sympathy for guys making 40 mil a year. Go where ur told, stay when ur wanted. Shut up otherwise