How can the Premier League become more competitive? | The Debate

After Wayne Rooney's recent success in MLS, The Debate panel discuss whether elements of American 'soccer' could be introduced into the Premier League to make it more competitive. Also on the agenda is whether MLS should introduce promotion and relegation and the allegations Manchester City have breached financial fair play.

[lochvids]

Its fine how it is... no one was saying this when united won every game in th 1992 - 2008

[travismiller]

17/18 Season : Man City win Title with unprecedented 100pts, 19pts gap to 2nd.
18/19 Season : Top 3 all remain Unbeaten, Top 4 only separated by 5pts, Football Quality rise.
EPL now host Majority Worlds Best Attacking Managers, talk of Zidane, Jardim incoming.
Contrary to the view debated, PEP Guardiolas actually lit up EPL, Competition, Quality wise.

[bules]

4 points between the top 3...why is this discussion even happening?

[paulhirst]

Its all very well saying Man City's cash is taking the title. But Guardiola has got the team playing some wonderful football. Money does not always guarantee trophy winning.

[johnny]

Stop using the NFL as a comparison. Leave the Premier League as it is and let it be free in it's own uniqueness

[laughterhappiness]

I miss Wrighty. Please bring him on even if it's the international break.

[kuyt]

If by "competitive" you mean every team in the league being on the same level, then you're dreaming. However, if you take the best 4 or 5 teams in the league and see where they are in relation to one another, then it becomes more realistic.

Personally, I find the PL to be quite competitive at the moment. Top 4 separated by just 5 points. Compared to Bundesliga 7 points, Serie A 12 points and Ligue 1 at 15 points, that's not bad at all. City may be banging in goal after goal after goal, but they're only 2 points ahead of an off-form Liverpool team and only 4 ahead of a Chelsea team finding feet under a new manager.

La Liga looks very competitive right now because Barca are not at their best and Real is still suffering from Ronaldo's exit and a new manager. Compare that to last season where Barca only lost 1 game the whole season. In comparison, City are currently +2 points up on their own points tally from last season while Liverpool are a whooping +9 points up.

[candymonster]

Investing money is better than taking money out of the club and putting clubs into debts

[frantisekvtelensky]

I'm not a City fan, but those arguments about "City bought titles!" is very embarassing. You can spend all money you have, but when you are terrible in coaching or management, you will not win a single thing. And the most annoying thing about those arguments is, that the same people who bashing City or Chelse as a "plastic club", the same people want from their own club to spend money on quality players. Hypocrits at its "best"... L'pool spend so much money last years, but still did NOT won anything. But still, fans of L'pool crying like babies. Work with what you have, behave a respect the opponents. That's the way to win.
BTW: Showing MLS as the best option is ridiculous. European/South American model with relegations is much more fair, competitive and it shows reality.

[zaki]

The top 6 clubs have the same resources more or less. Its about who has made the best and smart investments that have payed off. City and Liverpool invested in coaches and players that paid off. Simple.

[tsykes]

What I don't understand is why no-one has ever defined how much to spend is too much to spend.
If a team is performing poorly, pundits say "they need to go into the next transfer window and buy x, y, z"
However, if a team is doing too well, pundits say "they spend too much money and buy the league."
No one is complaining that Fulham spent in excess of £100MM, they just say Fulham spent poorly
Apart from the rogue absolute blowouts from City, everything tends to be competitive. Even then, City have only won by more than 3 goals 5 times, and by 3 goals or less, 14 times (which I would consider competitive). As an example, City went 1-0 against Tottenham (who are currently 4th), and squeaked out a 2-1 win over Newcastle (who are somehow 14th). The blowouts City have given were against the bottom teams: Southampton, Cardiff, Huddersfield, Fulham, and then Burnley (which can be argued defended awfully that day)
So realistically, the league is performing as it should.

Just have a look at the league table! 10th is equal distance to the top 4 (10points) as it is to the bottom 3 (9points). The middle of the pack should be average, and the table today is proving that!

TL:DR: The league is very competitive, it's just hard to realize that some times

[hugom]

Pep Guardiola is the greatest manager of all time and the only way the league will become more competitive is when Pep will leave.
🔴 NOTE: Incoming salty people calling Pep the bald fraud and calling City a plastic money club who bought the league😂
S...a...L...t...Y 😆
We are the best in England, deal with it.

[travismiller]

Man City FFP Alligations summed up best :
Man United owners taking money OUT of the Club - ✔
Man City owners want to put money INTO the Club - ✖
PS : Man City didnt buy Neymar, Mbappe, CR7, Pogba, Van Dijk.

[MattJames]

With FFP and competitive balance it is tricky, FFP is “freezing” the top teams at the top of their league, preventing new entrants. Those top sides then are able to play in Europe increasing their income through match day, merchandising and broadcast share. As the English teams bring more eyes to the competition they get a larger slice. Man City may not win but they will earn more because of how the broadcasting money is distributed.
The big teams therefore earn increased revenue from participating in the European competitions, and as FFP is based on revenue, they are within the rules to spend more in the transfer markets etc.
The rich get richer, the system is inherently decreasing competitive balance in the premier league.
(Edit, Stefan Szymanski’s journals and books are great to learn more on the topic, especially freezing which he came up with)

[TheNoobFarm]

Twellman is very insightful! Him and Kyle martino are by far my favorite American pundits

[billkat]

So they want competitiveness like it was before? You mean when Man Utd won like 90% of the EPL? Not only that, they won it three times consecutively twice!
Before 2009:
2008/09 Manchester United
2007/08 Manchester United
2006/07 Manchester United
2005/06 Chelsea
2004/05 Chelsea
2003/04 Arsenal
2002/03 Manchester United
2001/02 Arsenal
2000/01 Manchester United
1999/00 Manchester United
1998/99 Manchester United
1997/98 Arsenal
1996/97 Manchester United
1995/96 Manchester United
1994/95 Blackburn Rovers
1993/94 Manchester United
1992/93 Manchester United

After 2009:
2017/18 Manchester City
2016/17 Chelsea
2015/16 Leicester City
2014/15 Chelsea
2013/14 Manchester City
2012/13 Manchester United
2011/12 Manchester City
2010/11 Manchester United
2009/10 Chelsea


Since 2009 no club has won it consecutively. So I don't know wtf are they on about.

[znhait]

Misleading title. More than half of the “debate” was about the MLS and US soccer.

[arglc]

Man City is just a very very good side hence they are dominating while under Pep. It is not like in Spain, Germany or Italy where the rest of the others do not have money to sign or keep hold of anyone good. A side dominating the league and looking like they will continue to do so is nothing new in the premier league. Remember the Man Utd side when they won 3 titles in a row, the chelsea side when Jose first came to England.

[jimfrank]

As an American, the best part about American sports is the worst team can become the best team in a period of 5 years. In the epl, you’re not going to see Newcastle or watford ever win the title, which is sad. It puts limits on these teams which is disappointing for the fans of these teams. But what epl has over premier league is relegation which makes even the bad teams’ games interesting. Problem is you can only have one or the other

[OmarYoussef]

Absolutely disagree with those guys. I am Canadian and I have watched Hockey all my life. The draft system paired with the wage caps is bad. All you get is a constant rotation of who is champion but with no meaning to it all. If you're a bad team, all you have to do is linger in the bottom of the table for 3 or 4 years, get all the top draft picks and then go on to become champion for a year or two while another team is lingering at the bottom getting ready to do the same. Forget about the dynasties and top teams. It becomes a game of time where if you draft decently and tank enough at the bottom of the league for long enough you WILL become champion.