this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
17 points (94.7% liked)
Football (Soccer fútbol fußball 足球 )
5666 readers
1 users here now
Here for discussion of all things association football/soccer!
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No piracy
Other Football/Soccer Related Communities
- Eredivisie
- MLS
- Football Manager
- Ajax FC
- Arsenal FC
- Chelsea FC
- Liverpool FC
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
- US National Woman’s Soccer League
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see. I suppose my question should have been 'why are these countries rated ahead of Uruguay, Mexico, Senegal, Iran, Japan or Australia, when those countries have enjoyed far greater success on the field'. But I guess most of those countries have decent domestic leagues, while someone from the Ukraine or Serbia would be more likely to play in one of the big European leagues and thus be financially overvalued.
I think it's mostly a consequence of measuring squads by total value. Ukraine have two goalkeepers valued at 25m, which obviously inflates their squad value relative to how strong their performances can be, because one of your 20m+ players is always on the bench. Also, and probably more importantly, the total squad value is very skewed by singular expensive players. Look no further than Norway, notoriously an unremarkable performer, but their squad value is over 500m because Ødegaard and Haaland are worth 110m and 180m respectively. Those two alone are worth more than the entire Japanese squad.
It's obvuously not a clear-cut indicator of performance.