So very many fallacies here.
First of all, when Barcelona started, there were no super clubs, like Barcelona is today, out there to oppose their development. There was no massive TV deals. No international tours. No massive uniform deals. No massive shirt sponsor deals. No Champions League money and very little history to compete with.
All of that is a game changer and you can't compare Barca 100 years ago to Eibar today.
Secondly, look at what happened to Southampton. They had great success by their standards and what was their reward? All the bigger clubs coming and just shredding the team. The manager is out and so are several, several key players. Now I'm sure you'll say "yeah but they have a lot of money now!" Yeah but its going to be very, very hard to replace what they've lost. They essentially have to rebuild a whole team with a new manager. Even if you get players with the same level of skills, there's a chemistry that the team might not have like the team from last year. Or perhaps the manager won't be as good. There's a lot that can go wrong.
Look at when Bale left Tottenham, they signed a whole bunch of players but all of them combined couldn't really make the club even as good as when Bale was there. Southampton isn't exactly a prestigious club either so if a more prestigious club is willing to pay about the same as Southampton for a player, Southampton won't be getting him. So 150 million, or whatever they got in total, won't be the same for Southampton as it would for say ManU.
Of course, if Southampton goes down, they'll lose a whole bunch of revenue and likely will have to sell some of the players they just signed.
Then where will they be?
No thanks.
You make some valid points. I take them on board.
I think the difference is that in Europe we support a club not a league.
When we choose our club, (& often we do not choose the club, it is more an inheritance by birth) we support that club and have aspirations only for that club.
Barcelona could only play in the market that was available to them 100 years ago, (and sugar daddies were around then) as Eibar can only play in todays market. My position remains, despite your well argued case, that no one should have the right to simply buy there way to the top when other teams (such as NASL teams) are excluded because someone has bought the right to play in a higher league.
In simple (& extreme) terms lets say I own an oil well and have mega billions to burn.
I decide the best way to promote my company is to purchase a team in the MLS.
I fill that team with my mates who previously played for the local sunday league side.
My team gets battered every week, but hey it doesn't matter my mates are happy and I can afford it.
But the best alternative team is prohibited from competing at the level my mates are because I bought the right to play there.
I know it is never likely to happen that way, but it in theory could.
Eibar have earned the right to play against Barcelona. No MLS side has earned a similar right, They have simply bought it.
In America, you have the chance to perfect a flawed system with correct FFP.
Where teams at a level do share TV revenue etc equally.
This forum spouts about a New York Team that is inclusive to all. I assume the MLS spout inclusive bollocks as well.
When in actual fact the whole principle is as exclusive as they come.
All clubs should earn the right through results (however they are achieved) not pure financial power.
Eibar and Southampton teams (& fans) have earned the right to have a crack at the top.
Which MLS side has earned that right ?