That's coz the teams themselves don't engender nor deserve loyalty. The Houston Oilers can in the next season turn into the Tennessee Titans, the frickin' LA Rams can go to Oakland, et fackin' cetera. Now, in England, they have fackin' history, tradition and bloody community pride. You wouldn't see the fackin' Birmingham City team suddenly show up as the twat London Birminghammers because the capital built a new shite stadium there for them. You wouldn't see Manchester Utd. turn up as the Oxford Manchesties the next season, coz they couldn't get the fockin' city of Manchester to bankroll a new stadium. These teams have charters going back 100-200 years. (Give me some real stats here, Englishmen.) What's the oldest US team that's stayed in one city? The closest the US pro teams come to that is the Yankees, the Celtics (Celtic!), and the Boston Stockinged teams. Show some fackin' loyalty, and you'll get some in return! Faaaack! This whole statement is utter nonsense. Most US teams have never moved. This is a rare happening and when it does happen its because the market can't support the team. And often when a team moves it is replaced by a team that is more suited to the market. One need look no further than Hartford, CT. When the Whalers moved, a minor league hockey team called the Wolfpack was founded. Or NYC comes to mind. They couldn't suppot three major league teams, but it can support two major league teams and some minor league teams. How can a US team have a charter going back 200 years when the leagues and most teams have not been for that long? In baseball alone, the Cubs, Reds, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox are teams with long traditions. Not to mention all of the expansion teams that have never moved. Why there traditions any less vital? If they get relegated I guess they'd never even have a chance to have a tradition. For more on my view see here. North Americans don't tend to stick to teams that are "losers" very long. As a diehard Cubs fan I say that is just not true. Chicago has stuck by the Cubs for the last 127 years despite only two world championships, and one none in the past 95 years. But fan support can be fleeting...if they know they can't win, they don't tend to show up (Montreal Expos, Chicago Bulls after Jordan left). So relegating a team to a "can't possibly win" division is a death sentence in North America. I like your point about the "death sentence" that relegation would bring. And by the way before the Bulls got Jordan, the Bulls sucked...I guess if the Bulls were relegation they'd never even have a shot at those six championships. I think the relegation system is refection of monarchy and a notion that one should win simply because one has won in the past. Both of those notions are outmoded. I'd also hate see my Roma being relegated after their more than 100 years of tradition. Pop quiz: How lone is Totti going to sick around if Roma falls into Seria B? Your answer should give you a good reason against relegation.
I've got a question for some knowledgable British soccer fan. Last year I spent a semester in Swansea, and followed the Swans. It seems that this year they are in some serious danger of being relegated. However, being that they are in the the 3rd division already, where do they go from there? Do they just cease to exist or what? And do teams get promoted into the 3rd division, and where do they come from?
Teams relegated from the third division go down to what is now known as the Nationwide Conference. There's a structure of leagues below that as well. All teams that come into the football league are promoted from the Conference.
Ooh, it gets horribly complex below there. My local local team Moor Green FC, play in the Dr Martens Premier league and are one league below the conference. Try here for an explanation of the football pyramid in England.
