Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [change] Sponsorship between countries
Also note that multi-teams account could also solve problem (of users) as i describe before in topic.
I hope @devs will change their minds (in term of priority) because a "natural" large increase in the number of users in small to medium countries is very optimistic and long term solution.
To conclude, despite the obsessional @achmid's talks to save "small countries" im sharing his initial concerns.
While loosing users is a bigger problem for small nations, I see it in a (non small) country like France than the loss of human teams has a big impact on national 'challenges' and what makes the specific charm of sokker: communities.
Communities and challenges are the prior goals (in devs diary) and i hope this topic will be taking into consideration very seriously despite these "undiplomatic" discussions.
I hope @devs will change their minds (in term of priority) because a "natural" large increase in the number of users in small to medium countries is very optimistic and long term solution.
To conclude, despite the obsessional @achmid's talks to save "small countries" im sharing his initial concerns.
While loosing users is a bigger problem for small nations, I see it in a (non small) country like France than the loss of human teams has a big impact on national 'challenges' and what makes the specific charm of sokker: communities.
Communities and challenges are the prior goals (in devs diary) and i hope this topic will be taking into consideration very seriously despite these "undiplomatic" discussions.
Based on what's been discussed here, it's quite clear that new teams in smaller countries make less money than new teams in big counties.
What it means is new managers in bigger countries can grow their club faster than new managers in small countries.
Raul says an important factor is to make it so that new managers in small countries cannot get to their top division too quickly. That's fine.
Some people say it's natural for bigger countries to get more money. That's their opinion, that's also fine.
But it's also a stated goal of the sokker leaders to grow the user base of the smaller countries.
In my opinion, if you allowed new managers in small countries to grow their clubs at the same rate that managers in big countries can grow theirs, you'd see the user base in the smaller countries start to grow. And when the user base grows, everyone wins!
That's why it'd be a good idea to change the sponsorship algorithm, to allow managers in smaller countries to grow their club at the same rate as those in the bigger countries.
(edited)
What it means is new managers in bigger countries can grow their club faster than new managers in small countries.
Raul says an important factor is to make it so that new managers in small countries cannot get to their top division too quickly. That's fine.
Some people say it's natural for bigger countries to get more money. That's their opinion, that's also fine.
But it's also a stated goal of the sokker leaders to grow the user base of the smaller countries.
In my opinion, if you allowed new managers in small countries to grow their clubs at the same rate that managers in big countries can grow theirs, you'd see the user base in the smaller countries start to grow. And when the user base grows, everyone wins!
That's why it'd be a good idea to change the sponsorship algorithm, to allow managers in smaller countries to grow their club at the same rate as those in the bigger countries.
(edited)
Not sure that better fair systems will attract more users, but keep the current users. Anyway.
I think it would do both. I think new managers would be more likely to stay and experienced managers would enjoy the extra competition.
Vivski, if you want to make more money, I know only 2 ways: By efficient training of young players, or by smart trading. I do not know any manager who made money with sponsorship payments. All managers I know, who have a lot of money, they started with training of young players.
Sponsorship payments is for me peanuts...
Sponsorship payments is for me peanuts...
It all helps though, especially when it comes to starting off.
When people who start at the same time get twice as much from sponsors it makes a huge difference. Even at the top end when bringing in an extra 60-100k euro per week, that adds up very quickly when it isn't based on skill, but based on being in the high number of user countries.
Also whilst vivski looks new, he actually played for around a decade in the past. And given how hard people are fighting to keep the advantage, it is obviously important.
When people who start at the same time get twice as much from sponsors it makes a huge difference. Even at the top end when bringing in an extra 60-100k euro per week, that adds up very quickly when it isn't based on skill, but based on being in the high number of user countries.
Also whilst vivski looks new, he actually played for around a decade in the past. And given how hard people are fighting to keep the advantage, it is obviously important.
Vivski, if you want to make more money, I know only 2 ways: By efficient training of young players, or by smart trading. I do not know any manager who made money with sponsorship payments. All managers I know, who have a lot of money, they started with training of young players.
Sponsorship payments is for me peanuts...
The argument you're making here and others have tried in regards to it being peanuts so who cares isn't particularly useful here, because it completely fails to address the principle of the issue. If I charged you more than everybody else (even in your own area/location/city etc) for a particular item (even if that was considered peanuts) would you be upset? Would you complain or ask why you were being charged more than everyone else for the exact same item? Do you care if you receive change for any purchase? I'd be surprised if you'd accept any of those situations so why should we accept it here? It's not about the actual value, it's the principle that it's not equal and that it quickly escalates into something so much more.
Whether its 10k or 100k more that's still more that I can do something with. Also over time this gap increases and it also adds up so 100k extra a week is 1 million extra in 10 weeks, so roughly 1.5m extra per season (over 2-3 seasons, that's a completely new player we can buy from the TL). It adds up and that's without having to do anything else.
If I got double what I got now in sponsorship simply because I started in a country that has more users (and not through any skill on my part), that's double the amount of resources I could put into coaching staff or player wages meaning I could then more easily develop young players. Ok, it may be peanuts to you in comparison to things like gate receipts but it clearly isn't for those of us that see and notice the inbalance there. If you want to talk about a complete major overhaul of everything in one go relating to financial issues I'm happy to go down that route if you want (but not in this thread) because you're right, sponsorship is a small issue when considering things like gate receipts. It's still an issue though and we're simply trying to start with something that is relatively small in comparison to the larger issue. Since when do you try and tackle a huge project all at once? You don't.. You start off with smaller chunks of a bigger problem and build up over time.
Whilst we're at it, the second thing you suggested about smart trading, that's almost impossible to do in Australia (not really devs fault here, it's a consequence of being in a really poor time zone relative to everyone else). We can't access the peak periods most users either sell their players or are online, so we have to pay more then market value for players to stand a chance and hope no one decides to go over our already overvalued price and we also don't get to sell our players at a time when more users are online. It's a double negative. We pay more for players we buy (if we even are able to) and receive less for players we sell, thus our financial position is also much worse from trading so that's not even a strategy we can adopt unless we either don't have jobs or don't sleep.
I'm not even trying to push this as something they need to fix before everything else they're trying to do, I'm trying to identify areas they should look to improve/fix they mightn't be aware of. Priority is not up to me (if it was, this would have been sorted a decade ago) amongst other things. We might not all agree on the severity of the issue, but it's still an issue and people care about feeling like the game is the same for all players (whereas currently it is most definitely not). Merging countries would help if they didn't want to tinker with the formula, as would making bots more intelligent and actually improve over time at a similar rate to what humans would rather than deteriorating and never getting any better (edit - and also stop replacing long time existing bot sides in the higher divisions that just destroy supporter sizes/rating/ranking whatever you want to call it which impact sponsorship).
The solution should be discussed and debated but the issue itself shouldnt be debatable at this point.
(edited)
Sponsorship payments is for me peanuts...
The argument you're making here and others have tried in regards to it being peanuts so who cares isn't particularly useful here, because it completely fails to address the principle of the issue. If I charged you more than everybody else (even in your own area/location/city etc) for a particular item (even if that was considered peanuts) would you be upset? Would you complain or ask why you were being charged more than everyone else for the exact same item? Do you care if you receive change for any purchase? I'd be surprised if you'd accept any of those situations so why should we accept it here? It's not about the actual value, it's the principle that it's not equal and that it quickly escalates into something so much more.
Whether its 10k or 100k more that's still more that I can do something with. Also over time this gap increases and it also adds up so 100k extra a week is 1 million extra in 10 weeks, so roughly 1.5m extra per season (over 2-3 seasons, that's a completely new player we can buy from the TL). It adds up and that's without having to do anything else.
If I got double what I got now in sponsorship simply because I started in a country that has more users (and not through any skill on my part), that's double the amount of resources I could put into coaching staff or player wages meaning I could then more easily develop young players. Ok, it may be peanuts to you in comparison to things like gate receipts but it clearly isn't for those of us that see and notice the inbalance there. If you want to talk about a complete major overhaul of everything in one go relating to financial issues I'm happy to go down that route if you want (but not in this thread) because you're right, sponsorship is a small issue when considering things like gate receipts. It's still an issue though and we're simply trying to start with something that is relatively small in comparison to the larger issue. Since when do you try and tackle a huge project all at once? You don't.. You start off with smaller chunks of a bigger problem and build up over time.
Whilst we're at it, the second thing you suggested about smart trading, that's almost impossible to do in Australia (not really devs fault here, it's a consequence of being in a really poor time zone relative to everyone else). We can't access the peak periods most users either sell their players or are online, so we have to pay more then market value for players to stand a chance and hope no one decides to go over our already overvalued price and we also don't get to sell our players at a time when more users are online. It's a double negative. We pay more for players we buy (if we even are able to) and receive less for players we sell, thus our financial position is also much worse from trading so that's not even a strategy we can adopt unless we either don't have jobs or don't sleep.
I'm not even trying to push this as something they need to fix before everything else they're trying to do, I'm trying to identify areas they should look to improve/fix they mightn't be aware of. Priority is not up to me (if it was, this would have been sorted a decade ago) amongst other things. We might not all agree on the severity of the issue, but it's still an issue and people care about feeling like the game is the same for all players (whereas currently it is most definitely not). Merging countries would help if they didn't want to tinker with the formula, as would making bots more intelligent and actually improve over time at a similar rate to what humans would rather than deteriorating and never getting any better (edit - and also stop replacing long time existing bot sides in the higher divisions that just destroy supporter sizes/rating/ranking whatever you want to call it which impact sponsorship).
The solution should be discussed and debated but the issue itself shouldnt be debatable at this point.
(edited)
Ok, but then your country and all other countries for that matter, has to have as much divisions as Poland, botteams should be made progressively stronger going up in the ranks and all teams should start their way out in the 6th or 7th division...
If the money should be equal, then so does the rest...But it isn't...
Say... if there would be a solution in which small countries will merge into a larger group to have more competition, the teams will be sorted by rankings, probably... But imagine, Australia being merged with New Zealand, Canada and the US, going for a group of 86 users. Then all divisions are placed into this "Merged country" and you end up in division 6, and Division 1 having 8 teams of US, cause they have higher ranking, but still, you also played in 1st class...
So this would mean you'll be playing against a lot of bot teams, a decreased amount of sponsorship money and a long way to the top. Would you then consider it "fair"?
The sponsorship difference is a point which exists also IRL.
A middle way in this could be that you should be able to "earn" sponsors, willing to pay for your club, because of your achievements. If you were to play Surf manager, I bet sponsors are jumping in Australia!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Don't get me wrong, cause I feel your pain in the "fun factor". But this issue should be left as it is, if the rest won't be changed either...
If the money should be equal, then so does the rest...But it isn't...
Say... if there would be a solution in which small countries will merge into a larger group to have more competition, the teams will be sorted by rankings, probably... But imagine, Australia being merged with New Zealand, Canada and the US, going for a group of 86 users. Then all divisions are placed into this "Merged country" and you end up in division 6, and Division 1 having 8 teams of US, cause they have higher ranking, but still, you also played in 1st class...
So this would mean you'll be playing against a lot of bot teams, a decreased amount of sponsorship money and a long way to the top. Would you then consider it "fair"?
The sponsorship difference is a point which exists also IRL.
A middle way in this could be that you should be able to "earn" sponsors, willing to pay for your club, because of your achievements. If you were to play Surf manager, I bet sponsors are jumping in Australia!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Don't get me wrong, cause I feel your pain in the "fun factor". But this issue should be left as it is, if the rest won't be changed either...
I agree with the idea of your first 3 paragraphs and would be fine with this. The thing is, with how sponsorships are currently calculated, we would actually be on higher sponsorship under those circumstances, which is not how it should work, but how it does work. So yes, I would say that would be Fair, and Fair is all I have called for.
As far as the last two paragraphs, I don't know what you mean by "Surf managers", but I would be happy to be put up against any medium to large size country in sokker, because I know my management skills in this game. Initially it would be hard due to the inequalities faced by small nations, but I would quickly work my way to the top as I would no longer be in a disadvantaged country, and would grow quick.
As far as making stereotypical comments about not being popular in Australia, maybe look up some stats first. It is not Australia's most watched code of sport, but it is by far the most popular played sport and fastest growing sport in Australia.
And yes, I doubt sponsors in Australia would pay anywhere near as much as those in England, but you don't code that in to a game (intentionally or unintentionally, and it's clear to see in Sokker, this was unintentionally coded in).
If you do intentionally code it in, or don't want to fix it due to real life, then you put a warning when signing up that Countries like Poland, Germany, Italia, Romania play on easy mode, were supporters are easy to gain, get double sponsorship very quickly all due to riding coat-tails of older users, teams in Chile, Cuba, England, Suomi are on normal mode, and teams in South Africa, Malaysia, India, Scotland are all on hard mode where you will never be able to compete financially long term with those on easy mode, therefore making it harder to buy players on the transfer market, or produce as strong NT teams, or compete year in year out in the Champions Cup. It would also have to allow people to sign up to countries they do not live in, or have any associated too, which currently you cannot do, and are forced to deal with these inequalities.
Anyway I'm sure the DEVs have probably read this thread enough, and have an idea of the problem, that it is obvious to all small nation users that this problem is real, and that those in large nations have their head in the sand over it (which is fine, it's hard to see issues when you are not directly affected by it). Merging of countries in to leagues of greater than 100, would fix it all (over time) without having to fix the underlying coding, and should be done as a matter of priority before we lose even more experienced and loyal users from small user nations, thus fixing the sponsorship inequalities as well as increasing the competition and "fun factor" of the game as you pointed out.
If the Transfer Market was not open to everyone worldwide (don't know any other way you could do it), and there was no NT/CC competitions, it wouldn't make a difference because you would be playing people with the same limitations, but as this is not the case, it does make a difference, and should be fixed, and given we keep getting told by people "it's peanuts compared to everything else", then do a top down sponsorship system where it is based on league (so all Div 1 get the same etc.), because the large nation users have already said it is bugger all, and not important, and that we shouldn't care, which means they should not care either, especially as they will get more from gate income each season anyway, and then everyone is happy.
As far as the last two paragraphs, I don't know what you mean by "Surf managers", but I would be happy to be put up against any medium to large size country in sokker, because I know my management skills in this game. Initially it would be hard due to the inequalities faced by small nations, but I would quickly work my way to the top as I would no longer be in a disadvantaged country, and would grow quick.
As far as making stereotypical comments about not being popular in Australia, maybe look up some stats first. It is not Australia's most watched code of sport, but it is by far the most popular played sport and fastest growing sport in Australia.
And yes, I doubt sponsors in Australia would pay anywhere near as much as those in England, but you don't code that in to a game (intentionally or unintentionally, and it's clear to see in Sokker, this was unintentionally coded in).
If you do intentionally code it in, or don't want to fix it due to real life, then you put a warning when signing up that Countries like Poland, Germany, Italia, Romania play on easy mode, were supporters are easy to gain, get double sponsorship very quickly all due to riding coat-tails of older users, teams in Chile, Cuba, England, Suomi are on normal mode, and teams in South Africa, Malaysia, India, Scotland are all on hard mode where you will never be able to compete financially long term with those on easy mode, therefore making it harder to buy players on the transfer market, or produce as strong NT teams, or compete year in year out in the Champions Cup. It would also have to allow people to sign up to countries they do not live in, or have any associated too, which currently you cannot do, and are forced to deal with these inequalities.
Anyway I'm sure the DEVs have probably read this thread enough, and have an idea of the problem, that it is obvious to all small nation users that this problem is real, and that those in large nations have their head in the sand over it (which is fine, it's hard to see issues when you are not directly affected by it). Merging of countries in to leagues of greater than 100, would fix it all (over time) without having to fix the underlying coding, and should be done as a matter of priority before we lose even more experienced and loyal users from small user nations, thus fixing the sponsorship inequalities as well as increasing the competition and "fun factor" of the game as you pointed out.
If the Transfer Market was not open to everyone worldwide (don't know any other way you could do it), and there was no NT/CC competitions, it wouldn't make a difference because you would be playing people with the same limitations, but as this is not the case, it does make a difference, and should be fixed, and given we keep getting told by people "it's peanuts compared to everything else", then do a top down sponsorship system where it is based on league (so all Div 1 get the same etc.), because the large nation users have already said it is bugger all, and not important, and that we shouldn't care, which means they should not care either, especially as they will get more from gate income each season anyway, and then everyone is happy.
Sponsorship payments is for me peanuts...
Hey tsolias, are you sure about that? In your first full season, sponsorship is a high proportion of your income. It's important in paying for coaching staff. Developing young players is expensive.
Out of interest, ignoring end of season payments, what percentage of your season income is from sponsorship? I dare say it's actually quite important to your finances.
Hey tsolias, are you sure about that? In your first full season, sponsorship is a high proportion of your income. It's important in paying for coaching staff. Developing young players is expensive.
Out of interest, ignoring end of season payments, what percentage of your season income is from sponsorship? I dare say it's actually quite important to your finances.
100k is in my country the wage of a brilliant coach, thus it also impacts training
Yeah exactly, I would love a free Unearthly coach paid for each week just by being part of a large country
Don't get me wrong, cause I feel your pain in the "fun factor". But this issue should be left as it is, if the rest won't be changed either...
You make some good points, Dtox9, but I disagree with this point. If the rest won't be changed, then we should address the issue of unequal sponsorship between small and large countries. That's the point of this thread.
Merging the small countries would largely address the issue, because there would be no small leagues. But if there is no merge, changing sponsorship would be a good way to make the game more fun in smaller countries, so the small countries grow.
When the small countries grow, the game will be more fun and more managers will pay for plus.
You make some good points, Dtox9, but I disagree with this point. If the rest won't be changed, then we should address the issue of unequal sponsorship between small and large countries. That's the point of this thread.
Merging the small countries would largely address the issue, because there would be no small leagues. But if there is no merge, changing sponsorship would be a good way to make the game more fun in smaller countries, so the small countries grow.
When the small countries grow, the game will be more fun and more managers will pay for plus.
Ok, but then your country and all other countries for that matter, has to have as much divisions as Poland, botteams should be made progressively stronger going up in the ranks and all teams should start their way out in the 6th or 7th division...
I'm happy if they make it like this. No issue here, so long as we end up with a similar number of human users (or at least get enough to sustain 2 full divisions.
If the money should be equal, then so does the rest...But it isn't...
I should probably clarify here, I'm not necessarily after equal money but equal opportunity which in this case closely relates to equal money because I believe starting out you should get the same money regardless of where you start or what league you end up in. I actually think that the weighting towards league prestige is too high and it should be a higher % based on the individual's prestige with a smaller element for league prestige to somewhat compensate a little for ending in a more difficult league. That way more competitive leagues can still earn more but it's by a far lesser amount then currently.
Say... if there would be a solution in which small countries will merge into a larger group to have more competition, the teams will be sorted by rankings, probably... But imagine, Australia being merged with New Zealand, Canada and the US, going for a group of 86 users. Then all divisions are placed into this "Merged country" and you end up in division 6, and Division 1 having 8 teams of US, cause they have higher ranking, but still, you also played in 1st class...
So this would mean you'll be playing against a lot of bot teams, a decreased amount of sponsorship money and a long way to the top. Would you then consider it "fair"?
Sign me up. If you merged, you'd remove the bots, so all leagues would have human users where possible except maybe the bottom divisions. I'd be ok with that because I'd earn more sponsorship , gate receipts and have a much more enjoyable time playing then currently where I play bots each and every week and I'm still a few seasons away from being able to make our top league. I don't care if I end up in div 6 because within a few seasons I'd be div 4 or 5 and earning way way more and then be able to improve faster then I currently can now. Getting to div 1 would be a challenge but one I'd love to have the opportunity to take.
So yes, it would be much fairer then currently. Everyone seems to believe that having less users means you get to win the top league and that it's so much better for us because of that. As someone who experienced this over and over for around a decade I can tell you it's definitely not as good as one might think. You quickly want to test yourselves against others and realise you can't compete because you're at a huge handicap.
The sponsorship difference is a point which exists also IRL.
Sure, but that's usually down to a case of being bankrolled by an entity which has money, rather than anything specifically to do with one's initial success. Just think of Man City about half a decade or so ago. Why should a game where you want users follow everything about real life? Does that mean we should have 20+ club leagues that play everyone twice lasting 12 months a season, where you can lose your team halfway through a season because you're underperforming against expectations etc. Sure this is a game and we should follow some principles from real life, but income inequality should not be one of those.
If you were to play Surf manager, I bet sponsors are jumping in Australia!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Ok until now, I haven't tried to attack anyone personally, but omg are there any more stereotypes you can throw out?
Fact check: Soccer in Australia has the highest participation of any of our major football codes (it just doesn't seem to attract as much attention financially as our other football codes, and I could probably guess why but won't go into that here).
Now we've got that out the way,
If there's a reason for sponsors being less in Australia it's because we have several competing sports at the same time and we have limited business investment prepared to bankroll clubs somewhat due to lower populations then many large European countries. We also have a concept across all our major sports called a 'Salary cap' which is done so that all sides competing have equal opportunities and one or two don't just get the huge investment and become superclubs and bankrupt all the rest.
I think this is why you're seeing a lot of Australians here complaining about inequity because we're used to fair competitions, not whoever is lucky enough to be bankrolled by corporate entities.
A game is not meant to simulate the same flaws as reality, it should be able to be an escape from reality such that one can enjoy themselves and so any comparison to oh IRL this happens so it should happen here is ludicrous. Ok it doesn't mean you don't take all the good parts/concepts but things that impose disadvantages to select few users is not how you go about attracting new users from these areas. Again I'll stress the top countries top leagues probably have earnt the right to more sponsorship then the top of the lower countries, but that this margin currently is way too big and the gap is actually growing bigger because of the flaw right from the start which we've explained countless times over.
Don't get me wrong, cause I feel your pain in the "fun factor".
I'm not so sure you do, because if you did you'd actually be agreeing with us and maybe instead debating around what the solution would look like instead of advocating for no change because you're not in the same position as the rest of us.
(edited)
I'm happy if they make it like this. No issue here, so long as we end up with a similar number of human users (or at least get enough to sustain 2 full divisions.
If the money should be equal, then so does the rest...But it isn't...
I should probably clarify here, I'm not necessarily after equal money but equal opportunity which in this case closely relates to equal money because I believe starting out you should get the same money regardless of where you start or what league you end up in. I actually think that the weighting towards league prestige is too high and it should be a higher % based on the individual's prestige with a smaller element for league prestige to somewhat compensate a little for ending in a more difficult league. That way more competitive leagues can still earn more but it's by a far lesser amount then currently.
Say... if there would be a solution in which small countries will merge into a larger group to have more competition, the teams will be sorted by rankings, probably... But imagine, Australia being merged with New Zealand, Canada and the US, going for a group of 86 users. Then all divisions are placed into this "Merged country" and you end up in division 6, and Division 1 having 8 teams of US, cause they have higher ranking, but still, you also played in 1st class...
So this would mean you'll be playing against a lot of bot teams, a decreased amount of sponsorship money and a long way to the top. Would you then consider it "fair"?
Sign me up. If you merged, you'd remove the bots, so all leagues would have human users where possible except maybe the bottom divisions. I'd be ok with that because I'd earn more sponsorship , gate receipts and have a much more enjoyable time playing then currently where I play bots each and every week and I'm still a few seasons away from being able to make our top league. I don't care if I end up in div 6 because within a few seasons I'd be div 4 or 5 and earning way way more and then be able to improve faster then I currently can now. Getting to div 1 would be a challenge but one I'd love to have the opportunity to take.
So yes, it would be much fairer then currently. Everyone seems to believe that having less users means you get to win the top league and that it's so much better for us because of that. As someone who experienced this over and over for around a decade I can tell you it's definitely not as good as one might think. You quickly want to test yourselves against others and realise you can't compete because you're at a huge handicap.
The sponsorship difference is a point which exists also IRL.
Sure, but that's usually down to a case of being bankrolled by an entity which has money, rather than anything specifically to do with one's initial success. Just think of Man City about half a decade or so ago. Why should a game where you want users follow everything about real life? Does that mean we should have 20+ club leagues that play everyone twice lasting 12 months a season, where you can lose your team halfway through a season because you're underperforming against expectations etc. Sure this is a game and we should follow some principles from real life, but income inequality should not be one of those.
If you were to play Surf manager, I bet sponsors are jumping in Australia!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Ok until now, I haven't tried to attack anyone personally, but omg are there any more stereotypes you can throw out?
Fact check: Soccer in Australia has the highest participation of any of our major football codes (it just doesn't seem to attract as much attention financially as our other football codes, and I could probably guess why but won't go into that here).
Now we've got that out the way,
If there's a reason for sponsors being less in Australia it's because we have several competing sports at the same time and we have limited business investment prepared to bankroll clubs somewhat due to lower populations then many large European countries. We also have a concept across all our major sports called a 'Salary cap' which is done so that all sides competing have equal opportunities and one or two don't just get the huge investment and become superclubs and bankrupt all the rest.
I think this is why you're seeing a lot of Australians here complaining about inequity because we're used to fair competitions, not whoever is lucky enough to be bankrolled by corporate entities.
A game is not meant to simulate the same flaws as reality, it should be able to be an escape from reality such that one can enjoy themselves and so any comparison to oh IRL this happens so it should happen here is ludicrous. Ok it doesn't mean you don't take all the good parts/concepts but things that impose disadvantages to select few users is not how you go about attracting new users from these areas. Again I'll stress the top countries top leagues probably have earnt the right to more sponsorship then the top of the lower countries, but that this margin currently is way too big and the gap is actually growing bigger because of the flaw right from the start which we've explained countless times over.
Don't get me wrong, cause I feel your pain in the "fun factor".
I'm not so sure you do, because if you did you'd actually be agreeing with us and maybe instead debating around what the solution would look like instead of advocating for no change because you're not in the same position as the rest of us.
(edited)
If you were to play Surf manager, I bet sponsors are jumping in Australia!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Ok until now, I haven't tried to attack anyone personally, but omg are there any more stereotypes you can throw out?
Fact check: Soccer in Australia has the highest participation of any of our major football codes (it just doesn't seem to attract as much attention financially as our other football codes, and I could probably guess why but won't go into that here).
Let me clarify... I wasn't throwing any rocks of stereotypes here :-)
What I ment was, SOKKER isn't a big deal in your country :-p
So I mean, Australia is smaller in Sokker as it is IRL.
In sokker, you can see Australia a bit like the Norwegian League IRL...
It's much smaller than most other European "Football countries", though a lot bigger in size...
If you really think football is 1 of the biggest sports in Australia, then I really think you can make Australia a far bigger sokker country than it is now...
And with great promotion campaign you might be able to make it as big as Italy at the moment...
We'll never get on the same page concerning sponsorship, but I'll rooth for your country (and all other small countries) to grow exponentially!
But it is Sokker, a football game, which obviously isn't a great deal in your country, so I bet sponsors IRL won't be paying as much for 1st division in Australia, as they would in England... It makes perfect sense.
Ok until now, I haven't tried to attack anyone personally, but omg are there any more stereotypes you can throw out?
Fact check: Soccer in Australia has the highest participation of any of our major football codes (it just doesn't seem to attract as much attention financially as our other football codes, and I could probably guess why but won't go into that here).
Let me clarify... I wasn't throwing any rocks of stereotypes here :-)
What I ment was, SOKKER isn't a big deal in your country :-p
So I mean, Australia is smaller in Sokker as it is IRL.
In sokker, you can see Australia a bit like the Norwegian League IRL...
It's much smaller than most other European "Football countries", though a lot bigger in size...
If you really think football is 1 of the biggest sports in Australia, then I really think you can make Australia a far bigger sokker country than it is now...
And with great promotion campaign you might be able to make it as big as Italy at the moment...
We'll never get on the same page concerning sponsorship, but I'll rooth for your country (and all other small countries) to grow exponentially!