Changes in Europe, but there is a line

UEFA, the soccer organizing body in Europe, has come under increasing pressure to kowtow to the top clubs in Europe. They are likely the clubs you have heard of, even if you aren't a soccer fan like me. Manchester United, Real Madrid and the like. UEFA finally got pushed too far, and FIFA, the global organizer of the game, stepped in and put their foot down.

The story is that a plan had been hatched to create a league that featured 15 permanent members from across Europe, and 5 that were exchanged yearly through some undisclosed process. FIFA stepped in and warned that players participating in such a league would be banned from international competitions, like the World Cup. That will probably steer enough players away that the league won't come into being. 

However, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a large amount of pandering to the bigger clubs and bigger countries. One of the more admirable things about international soccer is that, at the very least, every team is given a chance. Every team that starts playing professional soccer in Europe has a path to winning the top prize in Europe, however narrow the path. Or at least they did. 

This year is the first year of the Europa Conference League, which is a third tier tournament now behind the Champions League and Europa League, and collects almost all of the teams that would have once been in the Europa League. The Champions League is, so far, unchanged, in that it will welcome every league champion in Europe, as well as some runners up in the top rated leagues. Europa will only have spots for teams from the top 15 associations, though other places could be filled by teams falling out of the Champions League.

The Conference League will be played, initially, between almost all of the teams that had previously been in the Europa League, including teams that win their National Cup (which is usually played by teams of all tiers), save for some teams that get to stick in the Europa League. It separates further the top associations from the smaller associations, and with an easier path to the top (the winner of the Europa League gets to play in the next year's Champions League) benefits teams like Manchester United, who had recently fallen on hard times, maintain a lifeline to the top continental league. 

Not satisfied, there is a strong likelihood that the Champions League will change format in the next few years to allow teams from the top leagues to start their campaigns later in the tournament, while also allowing for more games and more TV revenue for the teams by an extended group stage. The top teams didn't really need to work so hard to break away from the standard soccer structure, because they had a pliant punching bag already at their mercy. 

Just win some games

 I read somewhere, and I forget who it was exactly, because it is a sentiment of many people right now. The quote was, or was close to "there is no such thing as a small market, just cheap owners." It was in response to some owners looking to cut costs, perennially keeping costs down, or looking for ways to short change players on contract issues, all while the Mets seem willing to shoulder all sorts of cost this offseason. 

The problem is that most owners look at the teams like any number of their investments. Some owners view teams as passion projects and sink a lot of money into them, while others look almost exclusively at the bottom line. That, I would venture to guess, accounts for most of the owners in all sports. This means that, yes, from a budgetary standpoint, the bigger markets, with their typically larger crowds, higher ticket prices and better TV contracts, would have more money to spend on players. 

Yes, owners are fabulously wealthy and can usually afford bumps to the MLB payroll, but I would argue that most do when competitiveness is right around the corner. The problem for many is the depressed payroll when that competitive team is a few years away.

The argument is decent enough. Cities, states and counties sink a lot of money into teams and stadiums, and should rightfully look to some sort of recompense. Wins and losses aren't really a community benefit, however. At best, they lift the spirits only of those who are fans of the team, which isn't a blanket statement for any community or any team. Owners are cheap to the detriment of the community if and when they don't offer as many jobs with a livable income. The administrative and maintenance staff, those that live in the community even when the season is over, should be well compensated and can participate in the local economy. 

It's more important that that should be addressed than the top end payroll, in my opinion. There are signs that that isn't necessarily happening, however. None are more obvious than the contraction of dozens of minor league teams, costing players and team personnel their jobs, all of which were at the bottom of the MLB totem pole to begin with. Save money by not paying a 35 year old pitcher, not by depressing the salary of secretaries or janitors, or eliminating jobs in far flung communities. 

I'm not making any direct accusations of any particular organization or specific offense. I'm just saying that a low MLB payroll is not the worst offense an owner can make. Baseball is a tough sport to sustain or regain relevance. Large payroll helps some teams, but not all teams and not all the time. Sometimes, it takes front office ingenuity, like in Tampa or Oakland. With success like those two organizations have, it makes it unlikely that there will be widespread raises to payroll in Major League Baseball. 

Like it or not, that will be used as an argument against increased payrolls. As long as teams win games, they have no real obligation to keep their roster payroll high. There should be an obligation to keep the rest of the organization well paid, however. Let's hold owners to that.