Am now reading this interesting book. Love to read the passage (pp.3-4):
U.S. sport leagues are closed. Team owners carefully control the number of franchises and their locations. Generally, each team is granted a monopoly over a given territory. Teams extract substantial public subsidies for their facilities. When leagues expand, existing owners charge a handsome entry fee to new owners. Limits are set on roster size. Leagues benefit from a variety of antitrust exceptions.
In the English model, leagues are open. In each country where soccer is played (save the United States), there is a hierarchy of leagues. Poorly performing teams from higher leagues can be relegated to a lower league, and strong teams from lower leagues can be promoted. New teams can enter leagues at the bottom of the hierarchy without paying an entry fee to existing owners and work their way up to hugher leagues. Teams are not conferred territorial monopolies and usually can not extort public subsidies from local governments to support facility construction.
Well, monopoly, high rent suprlus and limited competition on the one hand, versus greater competition and lesser rent surplus on the other hand. As an economist, I know which one to choose...
P.S. I made another entry regarding this book in "A Gallery of Mind."