[Fusion]

Gary Lineker just said it's the first time that the pl has been won on goal difference. In 1989 Arsenal won the league on goal difference. Why do they think that a trivial rename of the league should breakup the whole history of the league. It was also the 2nd time that Everton have finished higher than Liverpool but not true if you include pre-pl history.

It doesn't do justice to the past to imply that the highest league in English football started in 1991/2 when some executives changed the name. How did they fill MOTD for so long

[Loat]

Because money and stuff.

[Slick Fosbury]

Because it makes stats appear more meaningful generally.

But also because football has changed so much since 1992, never mind since 1982. It seems silly to include what was a very different game.

[Fusion]

(Original post by Slick Fosbury)
Because it makes stats appear more meaningful generally.

But also because football has changed so much since 1992, never mind since 1982. It seems silly to include what was a very different game.

Not really, essentially all that changed was sponsorship and tv rights ownership, hardly like they changed the rules of the game significantly. Plus there were 22 clubs in the first pl, so following your logic why not rebase to when it became 20 clubs.

And what's the difference between Arsenal winning on goal difference in 89 and City in 2012. Both were the top football leagues at the time. Why does the ownership of the league matter for stats. Top goalscorer in 54 and 2012 - same thing.

[Ano1]

I agree, I think it's stupid to only mention 20 years.

But at the end of the day, Sky, BBC and Espn are the only broadcasters of the Premier League in the UK (I think). So it's probably in their contract to not mention the old league as much. I'm just guessing though.

And for the other poster who said times/football have changed. Well the game changes all the time, the offside rule changed only a few years ago, extra referees in Europe, and soon to be goal line technology.

[Adman32]

It is a bit silly I agree. Whenever they say stuff like 'Alan Shearer is the highest goalscorer in the history of the premier league' it kinda annoys me. There are other players who have scored more then him but before 1992. Its as if the old league Championship is just generally forgotten as the 'old football' no one cares about, where as the PL is cool new 'modern' football.

[TRS-T]

Because football began in 1992

[rockrunride]

The Premier League is different from the Football League, which existed prior to 1992 and still exists. It's marked the commercial era of football: television replacing attendance as the dominant way of following football, the parallel creation of the Champions League, all-seater stadiums.. a lot changed in 1992 and a lot's changed since. I don't really see a problem distinguishing the PL and old FL 1st division, consider it the "new" and "old" eras of football if you will.

[Jim-Jam]

You mean football didn't start in 1992?

I think there's no problem with distinguishing between them, but the PL is often made out to be far superior to the old format and like we should forget the old league system.

[Kevmeister]

It helps sell the 'product'.

[Femto]

Because some people think football began when the premier league was introduced.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Femto)
Because Sky think football began when the premier league was introduced.

Small correction for you

[mirin?]

(Original post by Femto)
Because some people think football began when the premier league was introduced.

But it did. The real swashbuckling action began in 1992.

[yellowpages_r_us]

because the media are a bunch of mugs.

[mikeyd85]

I like it tbh. Means that the historical stats are kept at least vaguely relevant. I couldn't care less if in 1953 x team beat y team, but haven't beat them since.

[Fusion]

(Original post by rockrunride)
The Premier League is different from the Football League, which existed prior to 1992 and still exists. It's marked the commercial era of football: television replacing attendance as the dominant way of following football, the parallel creation of the Champions League, all-seater stadiums.. a lot changed in 1992 and a lot's changed since. I don't really see a problem distinguishing the PL and old FL 1st division, consider it the "new" and "old" eras of football if you will.

I don't really see how it altered the fundamentals of the game. Just because a fan has a seat to sit on isn't reason to void history. These new uefa financial rules may be more of a fundamental change to the game but nobody will be rebasing history.

Anyway, commenatators/fans do mention that city hadn't won the league in 40 years so it also becomes a bit inconsistent.

[rockrunride]

(Original post by Fusion)
I don't really see how it altered the fundamentals of the game. Just because a fan has a seat to sit on isn't reason to void history. These new uefa financial rules may be more of a fundamental change to the game but nobody will be rebasing history.

Anyway, commenatators/fans do mention that city hadn't won the league in 40 years so it also becomes a bit inconsistent.

I think the Manchester United dominance also lends a bit of an argument towards recognising the PL as a new era. With City the fact that they're only the fifth team to win it in twenty years is quite remarkable.

[L18]

(Original post by Slick Fosbury)
But also because football has changed so much since 1992, never mind since 1982. It seems silly to include what was a very different game.

What?

How has Football changed?

It's still played on a grass rectangle with two 8ft by 8yds goals, 2 teams of 11 and 1 referee.

Or have I missed something?

Small rule changes do not change the principle of the game which will always be the same

[Femto]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Small correction for you

Good point actually.