Azərbaycan dili Bahasa Indonesia Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English Español Français Galego Hrvatski Italiano Latviešu Lietuvių Magyar Malti Mакедонски Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Português BR Românã Slovenčina Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Ελληνικά Български Русский Українська Հայերեն ქართული ენა 中文
Subpage under development, new version coming soon!

Subject: [change] Sponsorship between countries

2020-06-11 14:15:19
achmid to All
This should be a high priority with making sponsorship fair for all countries.

Currently there is a huge advantage to some nations in regards to sponsorship, whilst in other countries, it is impossible for teams to get good sponsorship.

An example is, at the start of the season, the number 1 team in Australia had higher ranking points than the number 1 team in Italy, but the difference in sponsorship. Australian team was bringing in 304 245 $, yet division 1 Italy was bringing in on average 387 500 $, Div 2: 343 750 $, Div 3: 288 125 $

Now the obvious argument is "well they are better teams", but this is not really the case. Ranking points go up based on winning, and you need to win against a certain quality opponent or else even if you win 8-0, you can still lose ranking points, which happens once you are about 1700 points ahead of someone. Even winning 8-0 doesn't make enough points to make up for what you lose due to team ranking difference.

This means agbell (the number 1 in Australia), actually made all his ranking points against overseas teams, within the space of after the cup to the new season, and had to make up for losing all his points every league match he played. So in reality, he was staying ahead of all of Italy, despite losing points in every league and cup match he played, which is about 3/4 of the entire seasons matches, he had to make up for in just 1/4 of the season.

So then, if he is able to make up for all this, and his ranking points are so high because of skill of team and tactics, why is he being punished with rubbish sponsorship? He, and others in the same boat, deserve to be getting the high sponsorship. Otherwise what is the point of competition like the Champions Cup, if he is being punished by 62 500 $ to 93 750 $ every weak. He also makes it to round 3 of the champions cup pretty much every season, so further proving he is one of the better managers in the game, yet every week, receives less money than most of those he is playing (and beating).

The whole sponsorship system needs to be fixed, so there isn't this bias towards just playing in certain countries. Every person should be able to get high sponsorships regardless of what country they play in, if they are a good enough manager, otherwise it turns in to a stock market game, where it is who can day trade the best.

So in saying this, I believe the sponsorship should be more closer linked to the Division you play in within your country and then secondarily, the number of ranking points you have but to a much lesser extent.
By using these two measures, it balances it out for all countries, and keep things like the Champions cup meaningful.

It can't solely be linked to division, otherwise those in small countries would have a big advantage as it's easier to be in a higher division, but by putting ranking points, it brings it down a bit, as smaller country users lose more ranking points throughout the season as they lose points every time they play a bot (and the bots are often in higher divisions than seen in large countries).

At present, it is far too skewed to just having high numbers of users, and there is no way that someone with higher ranking points, which shows his skill and team strength, should be receiving just 75% of the weekly income, of someone with lower ranking points than himself (the top Italian sponsorship I found was 409 017 $ and agbell had more ranking points than him)

(edited)
2020-06-11 16:00:13
well sure that sponsorhip can be adjusted a little... but still in italy even in serie C there are better or at in terms of quality with australia top league... so you must compare with equal teams (like serie D ) and how much they win from sponsors... they probably win from sponsors between 400-600 k lei... so that's the real difference... so australia top league teams must earn about the same 400-600k lei :P
2020-06-11 17:14:33
I don't think you are getting what I am saying though.

Prior to his sell up (when I took the sponsorship from), he was rating between 64-71, which is better than half the teams in Top division of Italia this last week.

In series C they are getting paid more than most the teams in A-League as well.
You pay more to someone, they then buy better players, and then you come along and say, well they have better players. Well why is this? Because they were paid more initially. This is why I used ranking, because it looks at play level and skill of tactics (not just ability to buy players).

The league will not get that much stronger unless they are paid on "equal" terms. As I wrote, I have made a compromise so that it is fair between big and small user numbers, because right now it is very skewed.

But you can't say, the teams are better in Series x/y/z when it is only this way because the initial problem is they are getting paid unequally and therefore can buy those better players.

This is further proven by when a new division is added to a country. When we got a division 4 added (a long time ago) everyones sponsorship went up, despite there being no change in the actual leagues.


EDIT: Looking through Romania. The one League 3 person who posted sponsorship, was getting 18 750 $ more per week from sponsors than agbell79 despite have 400 less fans, rating 4 points less, and having 1300 less ranking points. There is no way this can be fair or just if all things were equal. He is worse in all levels, but was getting paid more per week

(edited)
2020-06-11 21:56:19
i get it but if one team has a rating of 70 but if the average rating in the league is 50 then that league is not so strong then consequently, the amounts from sponsors must be directly proportional ( pretty low)... that's what i think

the solution would be to try to increase the level of the competition ( the average rating ) and then if there are major discrepancies between the amounts received by others leagues with similar average rating to make an adjustment of the amounts received from sponsors
2020-06-11 22:28:37
Ranking has absolutely nothing to do with the game's economy.
It has nothing to do with sponsors nor with the supporters' expectations, both these things depend on the number of supporters.

If you want to really compare countries and earnings, ask managers how many supporters they have.
I am gonna save you the trouble and tell you that teams in Serie A have more supporters, and that is simply because they they have played against more "real" teams while climbing to the highest division.

Now, is this balanced?
I don't know, but not everything is in favor of Italian users. (in comparison to users in Australia)
You already mention that it is easier for agbell to enter the top division.
Another thing, that you didn't mention, is that agbell has much easier time training youngsters than someone in Serie A.
2020-06-11 22:47:31
Now, is this balanced?
I don't know, but not everything is in favor of Italian users. (in comparison to users in Australia)
You already mention that it is easier for agbell to enter the top division.
Another thing, that you didn't mention, is that agbell has much easier time training youngsters than someone in Serie A.


Exactly - we cant make the same levels of sponsorship in all top divisions from that reason. If some countries are bigger, then they are also more competitive, so it's balanced - you can get better sponsorship deal, but from the other hand you have more difficult way for top division, it's harder to train young players, etc.

We can discuss what factor should be most important for sponsorship level - ranking for sure is not good enough, but league strenght (like average rating) looks fair for me.

2020-06-11 22:55:35
Raul to Raul
Just found interesting fact - my own V league has stats on level 48. So its even a bit better than Australia premier league - and my sponsorship income is at the level of 40% of austrailain champion. I have my team from 7 months, so in Austraila it's possible to reach top div in two seasons with team good enough to competite.

It looks, that there is already quite good handicap for premier league users, even in small countries.
2020-06-12 01:28:12
And you are comparing to this season in which we have two bots and people who have done a massive rebuild/using seconds in league (ie it's very different to normal).

It is not balanced if for season after season the top team, who has proven his worth season after season in the champions cup, is getting paid such a low amount compared to others who are worse managers, and cannot do anything about it.

I have been thinking and really the sponsorship should be based on division. Even if it is easier to get to the top division in a small country, and thus could get the higher sponsorship earlier, they will still get less money due to people filling stands etc. Except at least this way there isn't the inbuilt bias towards just having more users in the country.

@_james
That is why I used the example to show you. He has 400 less supporters (which is a huge number), a huge number less ranking points, and is a weaker team, but according to the formula, "deserves more sponsorship" which makes no sense at all.


And regarding training
This has nothing to do with training, everyone uses the friendly to train, so it doesn't matter what strength your main league is, it has nothing to do with training.


People keep talking from the position where they are benefited, saying "there's no issue". Of course in your eyes there is no issue, because you are the one getting the undue benefits. When this happens in society we call it out, and the same here. If I was getting a secret 200k per week from devs and someone found out, and I said "there is no problem", my words would mean nothing, because of course I'd say that, so I don't lose the money.
2020-06-12 03:26:38
You also forget, that being in big countries means you get more from gate takings at an earlier stage as you are up against human players throughout every level, and older teams who can maintain supporters and ranking because they aren't up against bots.

Don't play this off as it would be unfair on large nations of sponsorship was based on division, when from day 1, large countries have huge advantages in gate takings as well as the sponsorship.

One of the downfalls with democracy is that the majority can vote to keep the minority in the minority, and it is only through strong leadership that makes it so the minority can have the same opportunities that the majority takes for granted and actively fights to maintain.

Right now, this game is lacking strong leadership to make sure everyone has the same opportunity, because it has become obvious through many minority players commenting on different posts, it is heavily bias towards large countries, and that we are trying our last ditch effort to call for help before giving up on you for good, which will in turn reduce the potential income, and make the NT side redundant.
2020-06-12 13:31:41
Exactly - we cant make the same levels of sponsorship in all top divisions from that reason. If some countries are bigger, then they are also more competitive, so it's balanced - you can get better sponsorship deal, but from the other hand you have more difficult way for top division, it's harder to train young players, etc.

We can discuss what factor should be most important for sponsorship level - ranking for sure is not good enough, but league strenght (like average rating) looks fair for me.


I'm not here to criticise nor suggest that all top divisions should get exactly the same automatically, but if I had an option to answer your post here if I had a choice I'd instantly take the competition with the additional finances over being in the top division because I know my club would end up stronger quicker and then climb into levels of sponsorship I can never obtain in my current position no matter what I do.

Before anyone states what would I know I've been here 2 months, I'd like to make it clear I've played before (from 2005 to approx 2014) so I feel like I know what I'm talking about here.

The question I've had is what determines sponsorship? That would definitely give me an indication as to if there is any bias to the system or if there are things within my control that can lead to better outcomes.

1)Is it average ranking points of the league
2) Is it average rating points of the league
3) Is it supporters club size? (highly doubt it as I doubt our top player who has played since 2007/8 and dominated the past countless seasons without losing many at all is getting less than sides that probably haven't accumulated nearly as many fans). Happy to be wrong here though, at least it's confirmation rather than us having to guess.
4) Are there any multipliers based on the division of league and more importantly if there is, where does the base multiplier start from (does it start at 1x at the bottom league and increase for each division? Or does it start from the top at 1x and reduce for each division underneath?) If there is and it starts at the bottom immediately those in div1 regardless of any other condition (e.g this is simply if everyone had same ranking points, same ratings, same supporters, same mood) are both in their respective top division, does the one with more divisions earn more without anything else being different? Or alternatively the flip side, does those with more divisions in the exact same situation where one is div4 and the other bottom at div3 earn less with everything else the same. I worry about if there are multipliers that work in either direction here.

Avg league rating would probably be a terrible option if it is the sole or major variable in this calculation. Here's why:

Hypothetically, I get two sides in the lowest division of 2 separate countries with all bot sides with the same rating/ranking. Do I get the same sponsorship (at least initially since the conditions are the same?).

Further on, suppose that one of those sides of mine has 0 other users in the country and the other has many experienced players and the above division (whatever that is) is full of experienced users with stronger teams then bots. Even on the assumption that we started with the same sponsorship if sponsorship is based on avg rating of the league here is what happens.

Assume both leagues have the exact same results at the exact same time for an entire season, there is no training or purchases to players, thereby average ratings should be the same in each case . Now assume both teams promote automatically to the next division. If avg rating pts are the only or major variable here, suddenly the team of mine (which is identically the same as my other team) in the higher division again with bots will probably earn a significant proportion less sponsorship then my other side who promoted into a division with experienced users with higher ranking pts and that's without doing anything other than having the luxury of ending in a league with stronger users.

More money from sponsorship = more players (because let's face it, where else does money go?) which in theory now boosts my side in the harder league so suddenly one team has a stronger squad and higher ratings, increasing the avg ratings of the league and instantly earning more sponsorship going forwards, from which the cycle repeats. Over time that results in more sponsorship - more money - better players - more avg ratings - more sponsorship - more money - better players - more avg ratings - more sponsorship. This is fast tracked if you're dealing with other human players as they can improve their sides as well, bots don't and in fact get worse over time.

If that isn't enough, suppose that this next season I lose every game in both cases (doesn't matter the scorelines really if we're talking rating here as opposed to ranking). By the end of the season the side in the league with users has gained 16 weeks of an additional $X over my other side through nothing they have done (they've just been lucky to end in a league with strong users) and can use that to again upgrade more than my other side. Both sides relegate to their original leagues with the ratings of all bots are the same still. The only difference being that this time the team that was in the stronger league now has a much stronger team then the one who promoted to take on more bots, and so again even though the rest of the league is the exact same the side that got to improve their squad quicker will again earn more sponsorship. Cycle repeats again as mentioned above.

Ranking avg of the league has the same issues if not as severe. If you get stuck where you have no experienced users you're handicapped before you've even started. Sure you make the top division, sure you might win a few titles but you still can't compete on the same level as anyone else who get more sponsorship simply for being lucky to be in a league with active users.

That being said, if ranking pts are the major factor and not ratings or some multiplier on divisions, that at least has some form of control if you can get 8 active users into the same league and cooperate to raise ranking pts. The other methods have no control.

I don't know the best solution here, I'm not trying to make it a us vs them situation, I'm just wanting to firstly understand what does determine it (don't care for the precise formula here, wouldn't get it if I asked anyway which is fine) so that what little control we may have we can do something about it. If it's any other method where we can't control outside of getting more users then we're instantly handicapped.

I won't even go too many details into the fact Australia is on the wrong side of the major part of the player base and hence are handicapped when it comes to the transfer list system as there's no autobid/max bid option and we have to either overbid significantly and hope no one else goes 1 bid higher (as we can't be online at the hours the transfer market has the most options), or we have to find a way to get up in the middle of the night at some ridiculous hour in the morning and play the bid every time we get outbid and hope we end up with them. Another issue if rating points are determining sponsorship as we get hit with a double whammy.

Let me restate for those that haven't read this carefully, I'm not after a us vs them mentality (even if I often feel like that's how it gets treated), I'm wanting to understand the things at play here and how best we can control what limited control we have to play on the same level playing field as everyone else. I'm not after the exact same $ amount as the top division of other countries simply because I happen to be the top division in a smaller country (I mean it would be nice for those sitting at the top of low user bases to be at similar levels because there's absolutely nothing more they can do), but I do expect not to already be at a disadvantage before I've done anything that makes it impossible to compete against anyone else with larger/active user bases. In other words, top sides in smaller countries should be able to earn their way to get a similar amount as top sides in larger countries under the right conditions, as they can't control how many active users a country has.






2020-06-13 00:58:16
Excellent post and a great way to show, using examples, just how it currently stands.
2020-06-13 12:49:56
there's no autobid/max bid option

Hey you are welcome ;-)
A topic with not enough popularity :)
2020-06-13 15:01:38
Sure, i get your point.

Well balenced game should work with two different perspectives:
1. New users - make sure, that new team in small country dont get to much bonus vs. team in large country. In Australia talented manager can reach top div in half a year, in Poland current record is more than 4 years. And thats is fine, more teams, more difficult way, no problem with that. But we need to balance finances between newcomers to make sure, that starting in small country will not give too much advantage.
2. Experienced users - and sure, we can agree, that we need system, to allow small nations to improve too, and shorten the distance for top div. I think, that we can take a closer look on it. Im interested how is changing level of average ratings between top divisions - if disparities are rising, then indeed, we have a problem here.
2020-06-13 15:18:27
make sure, that starting in small country will not give too much advantage.

Well you certainly don't have this problem now. There is literally no financial benefit to being in a small country, as a new user or as an old user.

Just because it is easier to get to the top division, does not mean you get any bonuses.

The balance is way out, and has been out for a long time.

The advantage of being in a big country already exists in terms of getting more spectators to matches and therefore more money from income. This is the advantage to having a competitive system.

The Sponsorship should also not give addition bonuses on top of this for being in large countries. Sponsorship should be based on division, whilst gate takings should be based on teams supporters/mood/ranking, which makes perfect sense both in game, and in real life.

And you can't get to A-League in just two seasons in Australia, or at least have not been able too.
Melbourne Mongrels took 4 seasons - and he is an old, experienced user who despite getting to A-League, also relegated back to Div II.

I took 5 seasons, and again, that's an experienced user coming back to Sokker.
2020-06-13 15:35:10
Well, i think you can get there even faster - just take a look on Cometer - he have 2nd stats in his leage, with a bit of luck he can win his div this season and get promoted.

Cometer - what is your sponsorship income right now?
We simply cant make same sponsorship level according to division level, as long as in small countries you start in 2nd division, when in the same time in large contries you get your team in 4-5-6 div. I'm sure we all can agree, that starting conditions should be the same for all users, no matter what country they start.
2020-06-13 15:42:49
What I'm saying is it has not been done. Making a statement that you can get there in 2 seasons it ridiculous when even previously experienced users have not been able too.

And sure, people should start out level if they have the chance to get the same income etc. when they get to the top, but we have proven this is not the case.

Teams in bigger countries will still come out ahead in div 4, over a team in div 2 Australia, because they will bring in a lot more money from gate takings playing real teams, and get a lot more fans each week by playing real teams who have built up their supporters, than the team in div 2 Australia playing bots every week, who were mostly new players with very few fans, and will never raise their ranking so again less supporters coming to the ground.

This is why I say, Sponsorship needs to be based on division, because large competitive leagues will still end up with a lot more money coming in than what teams in small countries would bring in by being a division or two higher. That is the big picture, and cometer pointed it out perfectly in his example