The Pros and Cons of Ups and Downs, part three

So far I've been explaining how relegation and promotion, and its absence, changes the way professional sports operates in Europe and America. Now I want to discuss some possible explanations for how sports culture evolved so differently between continents.

This is not scientific, but I can think of two main reasons why movement between leagues would be attractive in England, and unworkable in America. The first and most obvious of these is geography.

After ten years of living in England places like Chelmsford and Dover seem like a long way away to me. This is a complete illusion. Especially when the extensive rail network is considered, it is impossible to travel any linear distance in England that would be considered a long trip by American standards. Most places can be reached in a few hours. You can even drive to Scotland if you want to in a single day. This has led to the wonderful tradition of 'away' supporters travelling to watch their club - something that is largely unheard of in America. Also, despite the grumbling of the occasional club chairman, there is no scenario in any of the top five English divisions where away travel by itself could cause a club to have financial difficulties. Even if a Cornish team was in a division over-represented by the northeast, it would be manageable (although very inconvenient). This means that the natural setup for any league is for all teams, nationwide, to compete against each other.

All professional sports in America have some sort of geographic division even at the very top levels. There are no leagues where every team competes equally with every other team regardless of location. Normally clubs are divided into geographic 'divisions' of five to ten teams and tend to play teams in their division more than teams outside the division. Division winners progress to a round of playoffs (to determine the overall champion, not second place). This system only works because the same teams are in the league every year. If a team in Seattle was dropped in favour of a team in Miami, it would throw the divisional structure into chaos. What's worse, it would risk undermining the most important revenue earner in American sports: television. Most leagues spread teams out across the country, careful to cover the top twenty or so television markets.

I do not think geography is the critical factor in this difference, however. The most important difference, I think, is to do with the differing attitudes in sports to amateurism versus professionalism.

Outside of football, the term 'professional' is a strangely negative term in British sport. I think this is more a phenomenon of southern England rather than the whole country, but for better or worse, southern England often controls what happens in the UK. Historically, amateur sportsmen were considered noble and pure. A professional's need to accept money for playing sport betrayed his lower class background. Cricket has been particularly plagued by this dichotomy, with all English players being classified as either 'gentlemen' or 'players' up until the 1960s. Football has escaped this scourge by and large (probably due to its popularity in the north of England where such niceties are recognised for the nonsense they are), but there is still a strong desire to leave space at the table for the amateur sportsman. The Football Association is a keen proponent of amateur football for all ages. The 'football pyramid,' which allows any team to have a chance to climb through the leagues to compete at the highest level (no matter how practically impossible) sits well with the British values of fair play and hard work. The fact that I could register a team composed of myself and ten friends and begin a long assault on the Premiership is an important component of the English sports ethic (even if it is practically impossible without the intervention of a millionaire or two).

Despite some early attempts, national amateur sports organisations in America failed to take hold. Maintaining a national competition was too expensive for anyone but proper businessmen to administer. The first professional league to last more than a few years was the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (or National League) in 1876. It was formed when Chicago businessman William Hulbert convinced seven other owners to form a league with enough central authority to impose discipline on member clubs. When the Athletics stopped travelling to away games in the west to save money, he expelled them. The league survived and the owners were able to concentrate on doing what they had always wanted to do: make money. Kicking a fellow owner out of the league because his team had not played well was not on the agenda. The National League was, and continues today, to be a closed shop. The American people did not mind that the new league was a overt attempt to make money from sport. What could be more natural? The fact that the National League was not open to all comers would have bothered no one as long as it delivered a quality product to its fans.

And this points to the other huge difference in sporting culture. In America fans are customers. In England supporters are stakeholders. Tune in tomorrow for the final instalment on this discussion (whew!).