Talk:Promotion and relegation

Comment

What is the best promotion record? or the worse relegation record? it the football (England) system. Although it it theoretically possible to move up 36 divisions to the premier league, has any team made it up significantly? I am sure some football pundits would know this, and it would make a good addition to the article. Just a thought. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Relegation

It is worth noting that relegation does exist in a limited sense in some college sports in North America. The Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association (EIVA) -- www.eiva.cc -- does this. The Tait division (highest level) last place team gets relegated and the top team of the Sweeney and Hay Divisions (of equal standing) gets promoted.

The following statement has been removed from the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, I've seen a quasi-promotion and relegation (albeit extremely limited) system at the high school level. In suburban Detroit, the three largest conferences (Oakland Activities, MEGA and Macomb Area conferences) will realign divisions every few years based on both enrollment and success, as does the OK Conference in western Michigan, to better ensure competitive balance. I'm sure the same thing happens elsewhere in America.24.174.145.108 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of reasons for disparity

The explanation of the reasons why North America doesn't have promotions and relegations seems self-contradictory. It initially says that it's mostly due to "geographic disparities," but then goes on to provide an explanation having to do with the differing development of baseball and English football in the latter half of the 19th century, which doesn't mention geography at all. Rather, the idea seems to be that in the US, there was no national governing body, so owners got to form a cartel, while in England, the governing body remained strong, and was able to gain support for its elite league by using promotion and relegation. (And I'm not sure why geography works, anyway - Brazil is huge, and has promotion and relegation. Plus, if you look at baseball up to 1950 or so, baseball teams were only located in the northeastern quarter of the United States, with Washington the southernmost location and St. Louis the westernmost.) At any rate, if we want to say it has to do with geography, this ought to be explained. john k 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Non-relegation systems section got far too long. It should state that such systems exist, name a few, and give perhaps a couple of reasons for it to be that way. Historical comparisons not only looks like an original research, is completelly out of place in here and belongs perhaps to Sports in the United States. Mariano(t/c) 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical discussion is perfectly appropriate if it is not original research - that is to say, if it has been written about outside wikipedia. And, I think, this is exactly the article which should try to discuss the issue of why some places have promotion and relegation and others don't. john k 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it is documented in several sources. It would take a bit of work to clean up and cite. I'm wondering if the whole thing wouldn't be more appropriate in the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players (NA) article. Also, geography does come into play - the National Association was an open shop - clubs simply paid a small fee to join and play a minimum number of games against league competition, without any limit on outside play. So, a team from, say, New York, would fall behind in the standings. Rather than travel all the way to Chicago (a huge distance back in those days), they would simply concede the pennant race, not make the long trip to Chicago but instead schedule games against close-by teams not in the NA. Needless to say, this was bad for business. The National League was formed in 1876 by owners (who by this time had seized all the business power in professional baseball) who for the sake of business set up a much stronger structure. To make long road trips more economical, there were initially four teams along the eastern seaboard and four teams further west.24.174.145.108 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

play locally rather than travel - this tale of 1876 may be true but I doubt it. Has anyone researched it - the local games played in New York(ballpark in Brooklyn) and Philadelphia rather than travel? We know that they didn't play a string of games against each other; indeed, neither of those two home and home series was played to its championship season quota (five decisions).

I suspect that after fifteen years at the center of the competitive baseball, measured by number or strength of teams, sudden on-field weakness had eroded the market for local games. And I wonder whether the Mutual and Athletic players received their final paychecks. (Note to descendants of club officers: the devil made me write that.) --P64 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

" ... North America, where teams are not relegated, owing to the lack of comprehensive governing bodies covering all playing levels in all four major North American professional team sports." There is no evidence presented to support this conclusion. Occam's razor might suggest some different reason: the economic model favored by the financial interests in American professional sport. Simply, tradition. In fact, there are second-division leagues under the same overall governing bodies in some of the major American Sports, yet there is no relegation system.

I see no support, in this article or elsewhere, for the claim (which I have removed from the article for lack of citations) that lack of an overall governing body for sports in North America is the reason for the lack of a relegation system. If there is a causal relationship there, I believe it runs the other way around: There is no need for an overall governing body for sports in North America because a relegation and promotion system is not desirable in North America. North America consists of three very large countries with widely dispersed populations, as opposed to Europe, which consists of many small countries with dense populations. A relegation and promotion system in North America would leave many people without a top-level team anywhere near them geographically. In Europe, if your favored team is relegated, at the very least it's not THAT far to another top-league team. I think that, brimming under the surface here, is an assumption that one system is inherently better than the other. That is not the case. It appears likely that North America has the best system for its geography and demographics, and Europe has the best system for its geography and demographics. If anyone has evidence that there is another cause for the difference, please provide citation. I note the comment that Brazil has promotion and relegation, and that it is a large country, which I concede. But in Brazil the national sport is association football, so it's unsurprising that its system, regardless of geography, is influenced by football norms. Formal play of baseball took root in the United States at almost exactly the same time that formal play of football took root in England, so it is unsurprising that each developed according to its own tendencies, taking into account both the natures of the respective games and the geographies of the respective nations. Simply put, most Americans who are not association football fans have never heard of the idea of promotion and relegation at all, and the absence of such a system can be put down not to a nefarious plan to avoid it but the lack of any good reason to have it. Ultimately, however, this is an encyclopedia, and there is no need to provide a historical reason for a subjective difference between two equally valid systems unless such a historical explanation can be clearly substantiated. Without more evidence, I think it would be enough to drastically shorten up the "differences" section of this article to merely describe the differences between the systems rather than speculate about why some people like vanilla better than chocolate. CoramVobis 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote for emphasis. With ellipses I have abstracted from the interpretation that the difference is a matter of taste, so the quotation may be unfriendly. But this seems to me the big point for Wikipedia. How widely to people endorse it? --P64 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, this is an encyclopedia, and there is no need to provide a historical reason ... unless such a historical explanation can be clearly substantiated. Without more evidence, I think it would be enough to drastically shorten up the "differences" section of this article to merely describe the differences ..." --CoramVobis

It is the narture of the franchise system that prevents relegation. Unlike the club system of Europe which is built on decades of formation and growth of a team; in the USA a major league team can be created and be in place in a matter of as short a time as three years, with most of this development taking place in the boardroom. There it requires a super rich businessman or consortium who want to bring a sport to a certain city. the owner essentially needs to do four things. 1. Prove to the league he/she can afford to run a team. 2. Supply a stadium in the vacinity of major league standard. 3. Show that the city governors are behind the idea, usually proved by item 2. And finally and most importantly 4. prove there is a large enough tv audience market in the area. Having achieved all four the owner can have a team created from nothing in the space of a season. Fans flock in because they are fans of the sport and the city. i.e. a guy says I like football and live in Birmingham therefore I will go and watch should Birmingham get a team. This format also creates the system where, say for example the tv market drops off or a poll shows that the people of Birmingham are more into baseball than football. The owner simply shops around until he discovers that Las vegas hasn't got a team, has a good tv market, a willing government who are eager to pump millions into a stadium and recent poll there showed they like football. In the space of a season the Birmingham team become the Las vegas team and few people bat an eyelid. Essentially if a team was relegated the owner would simply pull the plug on the team. Or more likely take legal action against the league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(I have twice highlighted "Brazil" for readability. P64)

About Brazil: precisely because of the country's huge size, there was no national football championship until the 1960s, and no official championship until 1971. Not all seasons of the Brazilian championship had promotion and relegation, and in some that did have the rule, it was not used (it's a really, really long story). And you can even argue that there was no really national championship until Copa do Brasil was created in 1991 (it's another rather long story). Copa do Brasil has no promotion and relegation rule (as far as I know, no cup competition does). So Brazil can't be compared to the US or Europe. Moving from football to brazil's second most popular sport, there is no promotion and relegation in either the men's and women's leagues, because there is no second division. But the US format isn't followed either - the concept of franchises is completely foreign here, and I had never heard of it until very recently. Teams are organized by social activities clubs and sponsored by a local, national or some multinational businesses(for the big teams - Minas Tênis Clube women's team is sponsored by Fiat, and Unilever had its own team - Rexona - until a couple years ago). The same system is followed, as far as I know, for most other sports, such as basketball. So there is actually a third system unrelated to two discussed in the article. It's possible that there are still more variations for sports in other countries.--Macgreco 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most" sports leagues?

I question the first sentence of this article, which says that most of the world's sports leagues, with the exception of North American pro leagues, use P&R. For one, it's not just pro leagues that lack P&R in North America; it's almost all leagues at all levels. Secondly, considering the size and wealth of the United States, there might be as many sports leagues in the U.S. as there are in Europe. Finally, as discussed at professional sports league organization, not all leagues outside of North America have P&R. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

article Structure and Scope

Overnight I have re-sectioned and rephrased the entire article. And improved the explanation or argument by introducing some new material. None of this makes it more wikipedic. (For example, all but the first clause, nine words, of this long sentence is original to me overnight: The NL's dominance of baseball was challenged several times but only by entire leagues, after its first few years; five new leagues after 1882 all tried with eight clubs, the established norm, a prohibitively high threshold for a new venture. There isn't much peer-reviewed historical writing on baseball and I am not in a position myself where I must publish this or perish.)

I agree, the article sprawls.
At the same time, I agree with its insight(?) that "Promotion and relegation" should not wait for this sort of historical account to grow within articles on baseball's NApbbp and NLpbbc. The open question, to me, is where historical accounts fit in the set of articles that now includes at least {Professional sports league organization, Major professional sports league, Promotion and relegation}.

I agree, it presents original research.
--or unresearched conventional wisdom, in some combination, who can say? While rephrasing the newly-distinct baseball section, I have not put it in the past tense, which would obscure its theorizing nature. (The NL baseball system "would permit the owners ... and give them ... those would guarantee ...") --P64 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

what is needed? more FA history

Beside documentation, the article needs more on the developmjent of the system within the FA. (maybe supported by other promotion/relegation examples but there seems to be 'pedian consensus that the FA is crucial) In other words, this article doesn't need less history, it needs more history with shift of spotlight on P&R rather than the supposed North American alternative.

For example, this is woefully short on details regarding annual election of lowest members vs automatic relegation. (In rephrasing thoroughly, I had to guess the meaning of the final paragraph.) Annual election of n lowest members is a version of annual election, specified by designating that the N-n highest members have a votes. That isn't promotion and relegation system, so the historical part of this article needs more, probably needs more both on the election era and on the transition. Since this is straight history of English football, which remains a major sport today, I presume that numerous authors have covered it.

On the period prior to football league, the basic criteria for membership and for FA Cup participation should be noted. For example, was it necessary to constitute a club(?) formally? Had Parliament defined clubs throughout its jurisdiction? --P64 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree; the article is on promotion and relegation in general, not only in the UK. Such content should be place in the FA article, or a new subarticle, not here. It is already too biased as it is. The hole non relegation systems section is as long as the rest of the article, and the part on USA history seams off-topic to me. Mariano(t/c) 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ICT

Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. have never been relegated BobbyAFC 10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Football League link

In the section on "Early football leagues in England" (near the end of the article), there is the statement "When the Football League was founded in 1888" with "the Football League" being linked to the article on the current Football League, encompassing only the Championship to League 2. In my opinion, this is a different football league to the one that was created in 1888. Should this link be replaced or removed? Squidgyegg 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Derry City

The stuff about Derry City is self-promotional rubbish. There was neither relegation nor promotion during their time (1929-1971) in the Irish Football League. It should be deleted straight away. RedsIndependent 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the statement below from the text of the article...

Uniquely, Derry City, a Northern Ireland club from a city on the border with the Republic of Ireland, have avoided relegation in both countries. From 1929 to 1972, they remained in the top flight of the North's league system, the Irish Football League. Due to safety concerns surrounding The Troubles, Derry City were forced to leave that league. In 1985, they joined the Republic's league system, the Football League of Ireland, at the second level, earned promotion to the top flight in 1987, and remained in the top level until the league was replaced by the new FAI League of Ireland in 2007. Derry City were chosen to play in the new FAI Premier Division, maintaining their record of never being relegated.

This statement is both misleading and false. While it is true that Derry have never been relegated there is more to it than that. The Northern Irish League did not operate relegation as it was a single league entity between 1929-72. It did however remove the membership of its bottom placed team every year who then had to apply for re-election against other hopefuls from outside the league. Derry faced re-election on several occasions in their history, effectively being removed, demoted, relegated {however you wish to put it}out of the league and then readmitted only by the voting of the chairmen of the other teams. Had there been a lower division Derry would have instead been relegated rather than asked to apply for re-election. By contrast Linfield played for over a century in the same league without ever facing re-election or, since it was introduced, relegation. Derry in effect have only played with the threat of relegation since 1987 {20 years} which can be bettered by at least forty other top flight European clubs. comment added by Captainbeecher (talk

"Capitalist" as a perjorative

In the section on early baseball, the author wrote:

The capitalist founders of the new League judged that in order to prosper, they must make baseball's highest level of competition a "closed shop" with a strict limit on the number of teams, each member having exclusive local rights.

I think "capitalist" is being used as a perjorative here, and is unnecessary. It doesn't add anything to the article, but it sure did catch my attention enough to make me sign up for an account. Mattvsmith 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing the word "capitalist" for just this reason. The sentence that it appears in works just as well, if not better, without it. eksortso (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Soccer heavy

Its very soccer heavy, seriously poor in terms of refs and poorly laid out. Murry1975 (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rapid and Austria Wien never relegated

Rapid and Austria Wien never relegated ( always in the Austrian first level since 1911 ) 151.75.84.137 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Effects of Relegation & Promotion

I was hoping the article would discuss more explicitly the effects of relegation and promotion have on clubs. For example, is being relegated seen as an embarrassment and disgrace, or just how the game is played and it doesn't really matter? Is it better to be the top of a lower division, then near the bottom of the top division? Do sponsors tend to drop out of relegated clubs, and start backing promoted ones? What impact does relegation have on the clubs finances, morale, fans, support, staff, and so on?

Ouizardus (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Europe Super League

The article does go into a lot of notice on leagues not having P&R. There should be a little more emphasis on what P&R does and where it does exist.

However, I think there should be a mention that the new Women's Super League, also does not have relegation/promotion, despite there being a league system below, as was the original plan for the English Premiership. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)