“The top four next year will be the same top four as this year.”
That was Kevin Keegan’s prediction after Newcastle United’s loss to Chelsea in the penultimate game of the season. He grumbled that the league’s evolution into an elite, uncrackable quartet plus sixteen also-rans meant that “boring” football was the inevitable result.
Keegan’s words unleashed a torrent of commentary. Just google “Keegan Football Boring” and take your pick of the opinions that were spouted by everyone from Reading’s Steve Coppell to every sports journalist in Britain to bloggers around the globe–except Soccer Orb. That is because I’m not inclined to conduct an examination of the state of English football that is sufficiently thorough and comparative to analyze Keegan’s assertions. It is true that since I’ve followed the English game (1998 or so), the title has been held by just three teams–Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea. And the top four are nearly always those three, plus Liverpool. However, Everton finished fourth as recently as 2005 and both Newcastle United and Leeds United–currently residing in the “where-are-they-now” file–made several appearances during the past decade.
I am straying off-point already. I understand that the rich tend to get richer in the world of sport, especially in European soccer. Teams that regularly appear in the Champions League have access to cash flows that open doors that will forever remain closed to lesser teams. Everybody knows that. But does that make the EPL boring? Speaking from an American viewpoint–not at all.
Forget for the moment this year’s nail-biting race for the title and the relegation drama at the other end of the table. Just look at the non-league competitions that spice up European football. I was reminded of this by today’s UEFA Cup Final match between Glasgow Rangers and Zenit St. Petersburg. Though it isn’t nearly as prestigious or lucrative as the Champions League, the UEFA Cup tournament is a portal to extra-league competition for eighty clubs across the continent. Over the years, the most successful of these have been Juventus, Inter Milan, and Liverpool. Tens of thousands of supporters from Glasgow and St. Petersburg descended upon Manchester for the deciding match. Even though the UEFA Cup may be a poor relation compared to the Champions League, everybody seemed pretty happy to be there, especially the Zenit side at the final whistle.
Speaking of the Champions League…most American sports fans could never imagine anything like this. A tournament that runs simultaneously with the domestic league schedule? Just for fun, try suggesting this to an NFL or Major League Baseball fan. The level of competition is daunting, given that it’s reserved for truly the best of the best. And it’s not as if Champions League glory always goes to a domestic league winner. Liverpool finished in 5th place in 2005, yet won a great victory over AC Milan in the Champions League final. There’s nothing boring or predictable in either the UEFA Cup or Champions League tournaments.
Then there’s the FA Cup. True, it lacks the prestige of Europe and the top English teams often field youthful, inexperienced players in the early rounds. But Manchester United and Chelsea fought tooth and nail in the Cup final last May, if you’ll remember. Winning a Double is so difficult that it’s been done only ten times since 1889 and just one club has ever won the Premiership, FA Cup, and Champions League ttitles all in the same year.
All this implies that there’s no shortage of meaningful competition in English club soccer. The relegation/promotion system that governs the many layers of the English game guarantees that things get shaken up often enough in the lower half of the table to keep it interesting. It’s clear that the top of the Premiership strongly resembles a very stable oligarchy, yet this doesn’t trouble me. Why? Because real achievement is measured by multiple trophies these days. The top clubs are held to higher standards that are more difficult to meet. Doubles and trebles are rare and likely to remain so. Moreover, competition among those top clubs is keen. Were any supporters of Manchester United, Chelsea, or Arsenal bored this season? I doubt it.
I understand that the examples I’m providing here don’t really speak to Keegan’s point, which is the unlikelihood of second or third-tier clubs breaking the top four’s stranglehold on Premiership glory. This is probably true. And it won’t change unless the FA bans its clubs from participating in lucrative European competitions. The probability of that event is exactly zero, of course. So I would like to invite those Brits who find the Premiership boring to take a trip across the pond in late July or August. They can take in a baseball game…perhaps between teams like the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals. Both were hopelessly out of contention–for anything at all–weeks before the 2007 season was over. With no threat of relegation, why did the fans bother to show up? For the beer, hot dogs and peanuts?
Tags: Arsenal, Champions League, Chelsea, English Premier League, football, Manchester United, soccer, UEFA Cup
May 15, 2008 at 10:43 pm |
Hi. Congratulations on the new site. It’s shaping up very nicely.
If the top 4 next year will be the same as this year, about the only satisfaction to be had will be the other 15/16 teams taking points off the usual top 4, especially if ManU/Liver/Arsenal/Chelsea get fixated on winning European trophies. That will open up the FA Cup a bit more. Keegan’s misfits could have been one of those teams chiseling points off Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. So there’s a bit of sour grapes in there, I think. They need a Drogba or a Rooney or Gallas. Someone who’ll step up and kick some ass.
May 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
Thanks for visiting!
Though I’m horrified when ManUtd drop points to anyone, I’m absolutely delighted when the other three occasionally do so. Good point–the rest of the pack has a real influence on the title by nicking points here and there throughout the year. Given Newcastle’s (and the other’s) financial constraints, their only hope of getting someone like Drogba or Rooney is to discover them when they are very young and capitalize on the time they’ll have them before the big clubs swoop in with a higher offer. Very bleak, no?
May 16, 2008 at 5:39 pm |
First of all, I liked your title. Layer Cake was a very good movie — Daniel Craig’s breakthrough role before really breaking through as Bond. And while on the topic of movie references, we all know the where-are-they-now file features Spinal Tap at the very top.
But this post was really about football. I agree with you that the EPL has been anything but boring. You cite many good reasons why: European tournaments (both the open competition to qualify for UEFA among those not foreordained, and the vying of superpowers against big-money rivals in the CL), relegation battles fought tooth and nail, FA Cup glory with its traditional independence from league success, and just the overall level of play. Of course, a Man U supporter is always going to like the status quo. If you were a mid-level side looking to step up, it might be more frustrating.
I think it’s ironic, though, that it was Keegan who said this. Newcastle have one of the biggest budgets in the Prem, and the Toon Army offers no end of support. They truly are a massive club. Their underperformance despite it is often attributed to poor upper management. Granted, it may be a tough sell to get some hotshot from Portugal or Argentina to come that far north to play, but they have the dosh to attract some talent, mercenary or otherwise. Nobby Solano was a bright spot for a while, so it can be done.
You’re right to point out the full complement of drama up top. And there’s even more to unfold. I doubt I’ll be bored, but then that’s nothing I need to tell you.
May 16, 2008 at 7:02 pm |
Steve, your comments are always thoughtful and insightful. I think underperformance is really the issue here. I didn’t know that Newcastle had a decent budget, but Liverpool obviously has money to spend–why haven’t they ever won the Premiership? It’s not that the top three are uncatchable, it’s that some of the also-rans could do better with what they have.
I sympathize with Everton, Tottenham, & Newcastle supporters–believe me, I do. I don’t mean to be dismissive of their frustration. I just object to depicting the Prem as “boring.”
May 16, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
If anything, you’re as empathetic as anyone towards the true fans of lesser sides. Plus, I was referring to myself as the one who was smug in his satisfaction with the normal state of things in Manchester. I think your main point came through very clearly — the EPL is not boring.
It’s interesting to ask what should be done, if anything, to bring about more parity. In other sports we know about here in the US, they have a draft in reverse order of success. Salary caps are also meant to level the playing field. These are somewhat effective ways of achieving the goal, but is that something elite leagues of soccer should strive for? I think a lot of neutral fans would be reluctant to dismantle the super teams just so less popular, less wealthy clubs could stand a better chance. These super teams do get plenty of competition in the big tournaments. Most years the top sides from England, Spain, and Italy are pretty evenly matched. (I suppose you could argue that the EPL team performances this year were the exception to the rule.)
Despite having basked in the reflected glory of Man U, I can relate to the humble, down-trodden supporters out there, too. Then again, this could actually be the Cubs’ year.
May 16, 2008 at 10:26 pm |
You’re such an optimist about the Cubs…I was going to mention a mid-season Cubs game in my post, one where the Cubs and whoever else they played were about 20 games out of first. But my final question–why would anyone go to see that game–would have a simple, obvious answer–for the atmosphere at Wrigley, of course! After Wrigley and the Cubs’ Lovable Losers persona, team success sorta factors into the equation…
May 20, 2008 at 2:48 am |
How influential are the WAGs, do you think? I’ve read and heard they don’t want to waste THEIR time in “backwards” places like Newcastle — i.e. non-designer shop cities.
May 20, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
Swetergrl, that’s a tantalizing question. I haven’t ever thought much about WAGS, except for the jaw-dropping fact that Wayne Rooney actually has one. (Mean, terrible, bad Susan–though I admit he’s an Adonis on the pitch). And The Guy (aka Steve) noted that “She likes to shop.” So apparently Manchester has designer shops? (I plead guilty to never having been there, though I’m a United fan). And Liverpool…but then West Ham and Spurs are right there in London…hmmm…and if WAGS are driving the movement of top talent then Chelsea have certainly underperformed over the years. What self-respecting WAG wouldn’t demand to live right there in the West End?
How influential, indeed…I think I’m going to do a bit of research into that, assuming you can call visiting the Daily Mirror and Sun websites (I suppose I shouldn’t forget OK and Hello magazines, either) “research.”
I’ll be busy publicly watching the CL final tomorrow in the city (God help me, it will be unbearable), and then we’re off to a Fire friendly match in Bridgeview. I will certainly look into this, as I hope you will too. Then we can compare notes.
May 31, 2008 at 11:50 pm |
I don’t know if you saw this story – http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sunderland/6947333.stm – from earlier in the season; Roy Keane seems to think the WAGs are influential, alright.
June 1, 2008 at 2:07 am |
Oh, thank you for that link, Fredorrarci! It’s classic Roy Keane, all right. He may be too intense about everything, and step on too many toes, and be in desperate need of anger-management therapy, but I can’t help but agree with everything he says in the article. I’m very glad that he’s had such success with Sunderland and I hope it continues.
What difference should proximity to shopping matter anyway? Don’t they have the internet in Sunderland?
July 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
hiiiiiiiiii BRAVO FOOTBALL