I thought the following dialogue about monopoly and competition from this 3Four3 podcast, with guest Ciara McCormack, was well said (around the 36 minute mark, emphasis added):
Host John Pranjic: The lack of competition, the lack of ideas being thrown into an arena, to let it fight it out and see which is best, that is what Canada lacks, that is what United States lacks, that is what Australia lacks, when it comes to soccer.
You get this one-size-fits-all attitude, from the top-down, that mindset alone is what kills the soccer environments in those three countries
Guest McCormack: There’s a reason in our societies, economically, that monopolies are frowned upon. It’s exactly the thing you are talking about. The lack of creativity.
I always liken it to, if I step on the field and I know I’m in the starting eleven every week — I can be good, I can be bad, I can sit and pick flowers the whole game and line [something] — and I know that I’m starting every week.
I’m not becoming better. People around me aren’t becoming better. They become stagnant.
Growing up in Canada, I’ll use my White Caps experience as an example. That was the only club team you could play for if you wanted a shot with the Canadian team.
The amount of power that gives the people in charge to treat the players what ever way they want, it just creates this awful culture.
When I was in Denmark, that would never have happened. You’re at a club and things aren’t going really good, then you go to another club.
Then another club starts with revolutionary ideas, that club rises to the top…
As I’ve mentioned before, we all have two powers: the power of voice and exit.
Pranjic and McCormack here describes negative consequences of not having a strong enough competition, or low power of exit, in a soccer federation.
These principles of voice and exit are true for all organizations from governments, private enterprises, schools, soccer federations and, as McCormack points out, teams.
It would be interesting to go deeper into how soccer federations are organized in other countries to compare to the U.S., Canada and Australia.
From my uneducated point of view, many seem to see their role more about fostering competition at all levels, rather than being in charge of competitions at levels.
For example, while U.S. Soccer seems focused on dictating the how many seats must be in stadiums and the minimum population sizes of team markets, England’s FA is more about ensuring that any team playing good soccer has a chance — no matter the size of their stadium or city.
I believe those in U.S. Soccer prioritize stability. That’s why they focus on stadium and market size. They think that will keep teams around, even when their results aren’t great.
I believe those in England’s FA prioritize the quality of soccer. It’s not that they don’t care about stability, but they believe stability comes from good soccer, not from the number of seats in the stadium.