I have indeed said this before, and in the mean time we've seen tanking become more prominent, obvious, and acceptable. And anyone believes that's good for the game is a douche.
To your other point, there are 30+ football clubs in Europe capable of winning the Champions League. As a sample size, Europe is a better comparison (land size vs US) as opposed to a small European country's domestic league. In this respect, there are probably only 4 or 6 NBA teams that have a realistic chance to win a title. So by this measure, there is a ton more parody and competition in European football.
what is the opinion. I gave links to EPL and La Liga champions history. its dominated by a select few rich clubs.
oh and the UEFA champions league winners:
^more proof? its even more top heavy then some of the damn regular leagues. where's the parity in that?
come on man that as actual proof enough that the richest clubs who can afford the best players have the best chance of winning. just like having a superstar (or better yet two or more superstars) is going to put you in a better position to win a champion.
relegation isn't going to create more parity. of course tanking sucks. but thats the system... its the way the Lakers got Magic and Kobe, the Bulls got Jordan, spurs got Duncan and the Celtics got Bird. There's already onus by the league to change it though. It'll happen eventually.