Is the Serie A meaningless now?
The budding case for a regulator in football
Earlier this (2017/18) season, the Partenopei fans had hope. But much like the seasons before, that hope rarely lasted beyond the wonderland of the Christmas break. Instead of a Neapolitan resurgence, normal transmission was restored. At the time of writing, Juventus have overtaken Napoli at the top of the table with about 10 games left.
They are chasing their 7th consecutive title.
Seventh. Consecutive. Title.
For the current and last 10 seasons, the Serie A winners read as follows (in reverse order, Current, 2016/17 to 2007/08):
- Juventus — currently top of table
- Juventus
- Juventus
- Juventus
- Juventus
- Juventus
- Juventus
- AC Milan
- Inter
- Inter
- Inter
Is it getting a bit tedious? Talk about understatements.
The fine line — Ridiculous vs. Sublime
With no scandal coming to light (yet?) the only conclusion that can be reached is that Juventus are head and shoulders above the rest.
They have 33 titles so far giving them a win rate of 29%; significantly better than their nearest challengers — the Milan sides (16% apiece).
How does this compare to other major leagues?
In Spain, famous for its 2.5 horse race in recent times (Real, Barcelona and Atletico), Real have a La Liga win rate of 38% but even their great 60s sides won 5 in a row maximum.
In the more one-sided Bundesliga, Bayern has a win rate over 50%, but even they don’t have anywhere near 6 back-to-back titles.
English Premier League, one of the best in recent years, is relatively well balanced. While Manchester United has dominated in the recent past, that is changing now. Their win rate of 16% is marginally ahead of Liverpool and there are no ridiculous 5 or 7 championship streaks.
The relatively smaller leagues in France and Scotland provide amusing anomalies. Lyon has won 7 times in a row (solely) since the turn of the century. The well-established 2 horse race of Scotland has seen both Old Firm sides dominate with 9 consecutive titles apiece!
So what is wrong here — nothing yet so much!
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with being unbeaten. Also, success begets success. More wins equal more revenue which translates to better players which results in more wins and more revenue etc. A virtuous cycle is set-off.
But then, where is the entertainment when only one team is winning continuously?
The league loses its attraction.
Compare for a moment with the Premier League, which despite Manchester City’s huge lead this season, has been rather competitive. Plus we must remember that Manchester City, have only won 4 titles in their entire history and defending champions Chelsea currently are struggling for even top 4 status this season. The last successful title defense in the Premier League was back in 2009.
Secondly, this creates an enormous disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. To be sure, clubs are not incorporated for charity. They are commercial entities who want to make a profit. The big clubs hog all the big players, pick off any promising players from smaller clubs and continue to dominate even more than before. Smaller clubs keep on selling and remaining mediocre. Bigger clubs keep on buying, becoming ever stronger than the very opposition, they weaken. Soon a situation arises where the best team is not the best team but merely better than the rest of the field.
There are two variants of this disparity. The first one is where one big club monopolizes the competition. The second is an oligopoly type situation where a small handful of clubs co-dominate the title race. Of these, the former situation is worse.
Serie A is now a one-horse race. This is a far cry from its golden era of late 80s’s and early 90s when the world’s best players played here. To think that Maradona’s Napoli denied reigning European Champion AC Milan, powered by the fabled Dutch Trio, the Scudetto in 1990; is the stuff of folklore — and a really good trivia question too!
Contrast this to the trend which we’ve lately seen, where the biggest club poaches the best player from its closest current rival, on route to the title. Higuain, van Persie, Lewa and Gotze come to mind immediately. Once again, not suggesting anything sinister or immoral or unethical has happened here. It is all above board. But imagine how much more competitive the league would have been had these transfers not happened.
Football needs a regulator?
No one wants to end up with a league where the top club (or top 2 clubs maybe) thrash everyone else 5–0. The competition in such leagues shifts to European places or relegation battles.
Football is a business. It is big business and industry in itself. No different to say the automotive, banking or telco industries.
Industries have regulatory authorities that exist to prevent monopolistic practices and ultimately protect the consumer.
Consolidating to the point of monopoly has never served the consumer — ever. Gwynne Shotwell
It is about time Football got the equivalent of a Federal Trade Commission or Consumer Commission.
To ensure better competition, a higher overall quality and attractiveness of the league, there need to be some control mechanisms. Corresponding with Financial Fair Play, we probably need Competitive Fair Play.
Regulation raises many philosophical questions.
If the clubs cannot survive, they get relegated. If they’re strong, they dominate eternally. Good players give clubs sustained competitive advantage. One can argue that player transfers are a transaction where both parties (in theory) realize their desired value — financial and / or non-financial.
So why regulate? Why not let the market take its course. Let clubs decide to challenge for silverware or fight for survival.
Yes, in theory that good, but what happens in the long run when only 1–2 clubs can survive and the rest are either perpetually in mid-table mediocrity or condemned to relegation pendulum? How attractive is a league like that?
To be clear, I’m not advocating a “forced evening” of the playing field by an external body.
But, for the betterment of football, we need some control mechanisms to limit scenarios where a club is marching towards a ridiculous record of 7th, 8th or 9th(!) consecutive title.
It is nice to have valid competition; it pushes you to do better — Gianni Versace
Maybe there can be a transfer restriction on players of a certain skill coefficient which can decisively shift the balance of a title win in favor of the acquiring club at the expense of the selling club? In Cup years, many unused players seek transfers to smaller clubs to increase their World Cup chances. Along these lines, maybe there can be a “league development levy” or “league betterment clause” binding on teams to release players over a certain ranking coefficient whose appearance rate is below x%? Or maybe change financial incentives so that other clubs get greater share of revenue?
I don’t know. In fact, the answer is not so important.
It is more important to ask the question of competitiveness first and then decide solutions that gently nudge a league towards competitiveness.
It is important for individual clubs, large and small, to become as successful as possible. But there is a fine line where hegemony turns into a monopolization of the title race. This is the point when valid competition effectively disappears both on the pitch (match results), and off it (transfer market muscle).
Dominance and streaks are statistical indicators of success. Football is a large and mature industry. Its measures of success must now be broader than just club hegemony, buying power or net worth of its clubs.
The enduring success of a league and indeed football as a whole will come through competitive contests.
As the Bianconeri march towards yet another title, Serie A followers must look beyond the black and white of club records and study instead the spectrum of implications of this trend on their league as a whole.
