Buckeye-NBAFan wrote: Lepramaniac wrote:
Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:"Why do NBA players only want to player for 5-6 teams? European soccer players are willing to play for 7 , maybe even 8 teams. Why is the NBA so different?"
This is not how it is: football players very rarely choose where to play, they are bought by another team, but since they are professionals, they play for the team that paid a pile of money to buy them, maybe as a sign of respect. They are not forced to, because in fact there has been some cases of a signing not going through because a player didn't want to go to certain team (usually in cases where they already played for their rival), but it doesn't happen very often. Now, there is also a fundamental difference in why a football player would want to play for a certain team: it is based on football reasons. Because it is either an emblematic team or because he wants to play for a certain manager (Guardiola, Bielsa, Mourinho, etc), or because they know that if they play for a big team, they will be more 'visible' and have more chances of playing for their National Team, which for football players is the most important thing, and something I believe NBA players care not so much about. But it's certainly not because of the lifestyle (unless specific cases like David Beckham) or the weather. In this sense, I believe football players always make their choices with their priorities fixed on the sport they play, then on something else. Take for example, Kylian Mbappe, who despite being French and living in Paris, wants to play for Real Madrid, because of the history that Real Madrid has. Or Eden Hazard, who now wants to leave Real Madrid and go back to Chelsea because he hasn't succeeded there.
Way to prove me wrong by citing players who are willing to subject themselves to c-tier cities like Madrid and London.
Also, your description of the transfer system is an oversimplification, if not outright untrue. Top level players routinely decide where they'll accept transfers to, and renegotiate their contract as part of the transfer.
Players are generally going to go to the place that can pay them the most though. The thing is, soccer clubs don't have a max salary, the NBA does. So when salary becomes equal, the city starts playing a bigger role.
The point I am trying to prove to you is that the majority of football players make their choices based on reasons related to the sport that they play for a living, not on where to live
. Madrid doesn't hold a chance against London in most aspects, yet Hazard decided to swap London for Madrid because it meant playing for Real. You want the best example? Bayern Munich, located in Bavaria, where everything closes early, there is little nightlife and laws are very strict, and yet players feel privileged to live
in Munich because it means playing for Bayern, one of the historic greats European football teams. Another example? Rapinha from Leeds, a medium city located in Yorkshire, who despite being coveted by teams like Liverpool, has said he would like to remain in Leeds because he feels a strong connection with the team. Now regarding the transfers, I say it again: a player cannot force his exit to a club of his choice. There is no 'sell-me-to-this-team' in football because the teams that owns the signing decides what is the exit clause of a player. So if you want to buy him, yo have to pay the exit clause, which sometimes it is ridiculously high. It happened with Neymar, who wanted to go to PSG, but Barcelona was not willing to sell him: in the end, PSG had to pay his exit clause of 250 million dollars to sign him.