View Single Post
06-24-2012, 04:54 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by zorz View Post
I strongly disagree with this opinion. This system of parity is one of the main things that annoys me about the NHL. And creating the same type of league in Europe would for sure kill my remaining interest in hockey outside of international tournaments. This is not part of the European sports culture. All top football leagues work just fine without something like this and you cant say that fans of the worse teams are not having fun.
Actually, the European football leagues don't work fine at all. There is a reason UEFA is trying to introduce "financial fairplay". Pretty much all leagues lose millions, overall it goes into billions. Teams that actually try to work with the money they have are at a significant disadvantage, because other teams just throw around money they don't really have. If the federations in England, Spain, Italy or France would use a proper licensing system, most of the big teams would have been thrown out of the leagues a long time ago, and even a federation like in Germany, which does have a proper system, cheats a bit to keep bigger names up, even if they don't deserve it.

Add the joke that is the Champions League (from a financial point of view) and the entire system went bonkers. UEFA really screwed up when they increased the size of the CL and put all the money in there. Up until very recently, you could lose ever single group game in the CL and still end up making more money than the UEFA Cup / Europa League champion. Before that, you actually had to properly manage your team and clever people could lead a smaller team to the top and stay there for a while. Now you have the rich teams making all the money, because they are playing CL on a yearly basis, while the rest has no real chance. Occasionally a team gets close to the top, only to drop down again because the bigger teams will throw money at all their good players.

As for hockey, most of Western Europe could not finance a KHL-team. There simply is not enough interest in hockey to sustain such a team. The odd billionaire would maybe have the money for it, but they usually aren't interested in losing money if they don't have to, and they would have to lose a colossal amount of money to finance a KHL-team.

Taking Germany as a an example, most teams are hard-pressed to find enough money for the DEL. There are three teams who maybe could do it in theory, Mannheim, Berlin and Hamburg. The last two are owned by Anschütz, and both are raking in huge losses playing in the DEL, even though Berlin is winning everything there is. Mannheim is even richer than that, but even they only spend up to 7-8 million per year, and aren't exactly making money on it either, if anything their losses should be higher than Berlin's.
Now, if the not so rich teams can't even finance themselves in the DEL, and the richer teams have the choice between being a bottom-dweller in the KHL while losing a lot of money or being a yearly candidate for the title in the DEL, why would they choose the KHL?

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote