They do things a little different over the pond and not all of it's bad. For instance, in any sport in the US there is very rarely a draw (or tie as they like to call it). They play regular season games to the death if they can in the form of overtime or as in baseball, play extra innings until there's a winner. We play 90 minutes or thereabouts in most sports everywhere else and then call it a day, regardless of the score. In the US everyone in the stadium knows how long is left which makes for very exciting conclusions in tight games. Everywhere else only the referee knows how long's left and that seems a bit daft to me. In the US if there's a dead ball situation the clock stops whereas everywhere else the clock continues to run and we have to rely on the one bloke in charge to be fair when adding that time on at the end. In the US, the finals (or playoffs as we call them) are best of five or seven. Can you imagine the FA cup being a best of five in the final? OK, that's going a bit too far but you get the drift.
Over the course of the season, I actually think the football model is the better assessment of who the "best" team is vs. our playoff system. Takes into account factors across all teams (form, injuries, etc) as opposed to just making sure you qualify for the playoffs and then turn up the switch from there with your stars to win it all. An example would be the MLS format, where the Red Bulls were the best team in 2018, and lost in the semi final, so weren't even in contention to win it all. It's happened to them 3 times, and it's not too big of a surprise these days for the best regular season team to not win in the playoffs. I do like our salary cap model and giving the worst teams in the league the best chance at drafting the best rookie (though I do prefer the relegation/promotion model overall).
The salary cap was a brilliant idea. I do find it odd though when players leave a winning team that has a chance of repeating a superbowl success to go to an average team for a few bucks more. I’d rather win a ring myself..
Yeah, I guess it depends... If it's a matter of a few million on like 10's of millions of $$$ may as well stick around and win more since bonuses will cash in + the endorsements that come with winning should cover whatever contract money you leave on the table. However if I were a role player who had some decent moments and my contract value inflates significantly on a worse team, I'd definitely jump, if say I'm a 5 million player being offered 15-20 all of a sudden. But for all the talk of FFP in footy, the solution for parity is legitimately in front of them with several multi-billion dollar leagues implementing the model to big success. Would also truly challenge the DoF role to balance academy lads with big signings. Could also help lower league teams stay sustainable if there's some sort of revenue share that helps cover the cap money. Can't see it happening unless something catastrophic happens, though, and especially with foreign investors excited by the current model where they really get to use their money for more influence.
No one over here wants to get rid of meritocracy just so the rich investors guarantee their financial returns. That is what sport is about in the states, first and foremost
