I think the answer to this question is irrelevant to some, and has different answers for many to those to whom it is relevant. In many ways, it goes right to the heart of why some of us feel the way about sports that we do, and why others feel differently. I guess the first thing that needs to be considered though is what exactly does competitive balance mean? Is competitive balance akin to deciding the World Series winner much like the NBA Draft winner is decided but with each team having the exact same number of ping pong balls in the hopper? If think those are the lines along which many people define blance, but it would also be a bit unsatisfying, because it sort of leaves the 'competitive' part by the wayside. We want some clubs to be better and some to be worse. We don't want the entire season to be a crapshoot. But we want the differences between teams (on paper at least) to be based on something that we deem 'fair' or 'rational'. From a fantasy GM perspective, we all want to have roughly the same resources. Using those resources, the best man would win (at least on paper). Then you throw in the fun part of watching it all play out on the field. In big-time European soccer, there is not a lot of competitive balance in most senses of the word that would apply in the US. That said, European soccer is probably more like baseball than any other American sport. The big clubs buy all the talent from the smaller clubs, and the big clubs are always around for the big competitions. Every once in a while a smaller club will have a great year, but for the most part it's the same teams winning national leagues and qualifying for European competitions. Just like baseball though, most of the smaller clubs do just fine at the gate and they all have their own niche in the grand scheme of things. Of course, they also have their own things to fight for, like staying in teh top league, or gaining entry to the top league, or simply avoiding being relegated to a lower league, which is a major difference from baseball. But the point is that most of these clubs have 'no chance' going into the season and people still line up to watch and enjoy, just like baseball. I think the NFL system works for the NFL. It works because of the way the league works in terms of its schedule, structure and the restricted nature of the game in terms of being played only here in the US. Most importnatly, the fans seem happy with it, even if much of that happiness is based on swallowing spin provided by the league itself. Baseball is just too different from any other major American sport to really apply the same criteria that we apply to other leagues. The economics are very different. The schedule is differnt. While international, it's still not as international as basketball or arguably even hockey. Though not as team oriented as football, it's not as superstar oriented as hoops, but is still exceptionally dependant on one particular talent: pitching. I'm not as happy as I could be with the state of baseball in this regard, but I think it's a bit better than it would be if nothing had been done in terms of the limited revenue sharing that is in place now. I guess the one big thing fans have to remember too is that we often thing of these issues from the fantasy GM or owner perspective, too. The whole thing is much, much different from a player perspective. And while it's hard for us to relate to that perspective, it's crucial to the whole picture.