[rizz0]

Club != Owners.

The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.

Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.

In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.

Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.

[zelos]

> the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.

This has always confused me: what's the connection between the community and the club? How does Man City 'represent' Manchester?

[barbazoo]

From my experience, clubs are much more connected with the community in Europe. Where I'm from, you'd have sports clubs that offer different sports at different levels. In Germany you'll find a "Sportverein (SV), Fussballclub (FC), Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft (TSG), etc" in almost every town. If it's a generic club, they'll have many sports. Eintracht Frankfurt for instance has a Bundesliga football team but they also have amateur football teams, handball teams, hockey, etc. Towns often have more than one sports club so there connection to "your" club as well.

So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).

[randomsearch]

Clubs are heavily involved in their communities. They do a lot of charity and community work. Lots of players come through the club’s youth system, which usually contains a disproportionate number of local kids.

The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.

[chrisseaton]

In the UK most clubs are literally in the middle of a residential community. In many working-class towns they're the literal and emotional centre of the community - visible from all around and one of just a few unchanging social things shared across generations. People are very heavily invested into them.

[xapata]

Some clubs are majority owned by the fans.

[barbazoo]

I don't think that's it. For fans, whether you "belong" to a club has nothing to do with money. It more what city you were born in, what games did your parents take you to when you were young, what trading cards did you own when you were a child or who were your idols when you played football as a kid, things like that.

[jopsen]

I was shocked when I learned that American sports teams could be bought and moved to another city.

I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.

[Mordisquitos]

> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton

I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

[hambast]

Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).

[OldHand2018]

Whether you support City or United has been a cultural thing going back 100 years. It kind of defines you and where you fit in. I know some people that have had season passes for City for 50+ years, passed down from father to son. It is totally part of their identity.

Geography only plays a small part of this.

[randomsearch]

That’s not even remotely geographically correct.

And United’s first home wasn’t in Trafford.

[zimpenfish]

> That’s not even remotely geographically correct.

Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.

[nradov]

How many Man City players are actually from Manchester? I fail to see the connection to the local community.

[randomsearch]

In a recent game half of the Manchester United onfield players were local or academy players. Mostly local.

I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?

Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.

Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...

[lotsofpulp]

>Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...

I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.