Every Chinese league has 16 teams, 15 home games a season. But like the United Kingdom, Spain and other countries which have more than four homes per season than China. This is a huge disadvantage for Chinese players and other players in small league like Poland and Bosnia and Herzegowina.

I will discuss 3 points here

1.Income:
This is the most crucial point, after an initial accumulation of income, the Stadium income become the most important one.But like the United Kingdom and Spain, they have 4 home matches more than China (25% of the homes), when we have level four stadium, they will earn additional 7.5 million per season, the gap is enormous!

2.Experience:
16-team league team per season up to get 14 * 30 * 500 = 210000 experience, every season of the 20-team league team can get up to 14 * 38 * 500 = 266000 experience. The difference is 56000 experience, We can use 56000 experience to train a player's one attribute from 0 to 3.5 balls. What a big disadvantage.

3.Population:
We can get up to 1850 populations when we have level 3 Stadium. Every season we will lose 7400 points because of the losing 4 matches, If we plus population we get from win or tie of 8 matches, the gap can be more than 10,000 pops!

This is my personal fairness of the game's point of view.If we can do better, why do not you change it?

Sorry for my poor English.

I hope the managers to consider. Also hope that the game is getting better and better.

Let's discuss what to do to eliminate unfair from the game system

I agree that the inconsistency in the number of teams per league is unfair.

I suspect that the inconsistency of the number of teams per league might be a result of a mechanism to maximize the number of league levels. Perhaps once a certain threshold of active teams is hit, the average number decreases as another level is added. For instance, China would have only had 51.2 20-team leagues or 56.9 18-team leagues. There might not have been enough players to fill 64 20-team leagues, but there might have been too many for 32 20-team leagues. England on the other hand could have enough teams for 20 16-team leagues,which might not be enough to justify going from 16 to 32 leagues. This is my theory at least.

Although China suffers from the arbitrariness of the league size mechanism, China probably benefits significantly from having more league levels and therefore higher sponsorship offers on average. China probably would not be better off, at least as far as the income factor, with 32 20-team leagues.

While you could make the argument that leagues should all be the same size, that might prejudice the smaller countries who would have significantly fewer league levels and suffer from smaller sponsorships. In that respect, the current system probably does a fair job in balancing equities.

In addition, without such balancing, everybody might just be forced to join the few largest leagues (they would join the largest league until the bonus from more league levels is outweighed by the bonus from starting in a higher league level).

With all of that said, I would suggest that all leagues be set to a consistent n teams and that the sponsorship mechanism be redefined not to account for the number of league levels. This would have the effect of creating parity between countries by encouraging new players to join smaller countries to start at a higher level. Perhaps it might not be realistic for Estonia to have as many players as China, but it might make for a better game. Of course, leaving in the bonus for being in a higher league level without balancing it by accounting for the number of league levels might lead to unfair entrenchment of longer tenured teams.

Also, the sponsorship offers are fast becoming inadequate relative to the skyrocketing facility and player costs while the earnings from the stadiums only help a little and grow relatively slowly. As for the tv revnue, it would help for there to be some sort of formula so that we can at least make and account for in decision making projections on how much to expect.

As for the experience consideration, a simple solution might be to increase the number of exhibitions for which player may gain experience for countries with smaller average league size. That would encourage teams to play more exhibitions, indirectly helping to resolve the popularity and financial issues as well.

I'm pretty sure this was discussed before. It's not possible to balance the countries equally, that's not the intention. There are a lot of differences between countries, some I can control, like how many people play in one group but most I can't, like how many total managers there are in a country or how many VIP-users, or how many active countries there are in their continent.

You will mostly play against people from your own country, comparing china to england makes no sense. There are so many differences between these two countries that it's hard to say which is better, but they won't play each other so it doesn't matter.

@Ulysses

I'm sorry to tell you your theory is wrong since there is no relationship between active player number and number of teams per league. Because Vincent want to make a game like our real life. The number of teams per league depends on reality. In reality, China has only 16 teams in the 1st league.

What's more, I don't know why you think we can benefit from having more league levels and higher sponsorship offers on average.

More leagues only make it harder to promote to the 1st league and harder to get a place to attend the championship. So this is absolute a disadvantage.

For sponsorship, maybe we can compare our sponsorship here. :)

Hi, Vincent. I know we once discussed this topic and you persuaded me.
But that time we only discussed about the differences in experience.

Now I believe 球霸 mentioned two important points
1.Income.
As you said, we will mostly play against people from our own country or our continent. But it's nothing to do with the income. Because we use income to buy players... If teams in England and Spain earn much more money than us. How can we compete with them in transfer market?

And maybe we can't only talk about China, right? Poland and Bosnia and Herzegowina also only have 15 home matches and they have chance to compete with teams from England and Spain.Maybe you will say they have physical advantages in European Champions, then how about players in 2nd or 3rd league of Poland?

What's more, we will have World Cup in the future. We all know more income means higher facility level(better youth center and better training complex) So players of England and Spain are very possible to be better than Chinese players, as it is in the real life, but I don't think your "game as real life" means this.

2.Population
As 球霸 calculated, 10000 population per season is quite a lot. If we have better stadium, the problem becomes bigger.

You know, more pop means more match income and better stadium, then more pop...At last, this problem will make a big gap between teams in large league and small league. They will be as rich as Real Madrid or Man Utd and we will be poor clubs in China like the reality.

So I believe we need to discuss it again and find a proper way to solve problems and make it fair for players both in large league and small league.

At last, may I ask a question? What's the advantage of playing in small league like China and Poland? I really don't know.

I earn $39,500 per week. I am not yet a VIP, though I may become one in the future. The number of leagues also applies to television revenue. I earned $1,205,381 (which was about a 10.8% share of the television revenue available to my 16-team league).

Your team at least benefits from having more league levels, assuming that you do actually get more money per week. Teams in lower leagues might be compensated for playing in lower leagues by being paid more for the number of league levels. It really depends on the actual numbers and underlying weights. Players that choose large leagues choose to accept the difficulty in promoting. More invitations to the Champions and Europa-type leagues are allocated to larger contries as compensation.

It's Vincent's development team's prerogative to choose to focus on the realism of the game. Balancing competition betwen leagues might be too difficult to realistically pursue without disadvantaging some group of players or otherwise removing all of the competitiveness from the game. Though I would prefer for there to be more balancing between leagues and don't want to be disadvantaged by not choosing to play in England (I actually had a team in the top English league before switching to the United States), the game is still fun in its current state.

As to the problems stated in the opening post, I would restate my suggestion from my last paragraph in case it was decided that balancing leagues with regard to those problems should be pursued. Even so, the expected earnings/popularity gain/experience gain from Cup matches might also be larger in countries with longer tournaments (though this depends on the actual prize money available for each round). Of course, like for the sponsorship, this too primarily benefits the best teams.

Along the argument of competing for players on the world market, I would add that the value of players improves significantly as they become better as a result of gaining more experience over many years.

Against that argument, the current market system allows for the low bid to have a fighting chance, assuming that you have enough money for the lowest bid. The fixed prices of players also prevents the potential inflation of prices for players in countries with richer teams.

Against my counter-argument, however, those richer teams can afford more good players. Since they could pay higher weekly costs for players and facilities, and improve facilities faster, this advantage increases.

I'm a VIP3 and I get 371207 RMB per week. So a non Vip will get 247471.33 RMB per week. If we convert it into dollars, that is 39281.16 dollars in current exchange rate...You get 39500, right? No benefit, almost the same. :)

And we also don't get any additional tickets to Asia league and Asia Champions...

You mentioned the cup. I don't know whether we earn more money than you in this tournament because we have more rounds. Maybe we can compare latter.:) It's interesting to know more information about other countries.

But cup of Poland is the same as yours and they have only 15 home matches in their league.

It is not clear what exchange rate was applied by the game, but you should have gotten a higher sponsorship offer based on what the help page says. Even if China doesn't (and will not in the future) have any benefit over the United States with regard to sponsorship and television revenue, countries like England still have the benefits described in the opening post. My first post wrongly assumed that the development team was engaging in a balancing of potential between countries anyway.

I seem to have been mistaken about the additional tickets since North America does not at this time have a Europa-type league - a separate issue.

The potential advantages from playing a longer Cup help to balance out the problems (popularity and perhaps income but actually not experience) mentioned in the first post at least for China, though they aren't tied to individual league size.

@Ulysses
I agree with your view of transfer market.
I will add another point. We all know if 5 players bid for a player, a new round will come and the minimum price will increase. And in the future if you want to buy a really good player, it is very possible to go to the last round. That is to say the transaction price will be much higher than the market value. So maybe we even have no chance to take part in the last round...

True. I did not consider that since I've never had to bid for more than one round (I've mostly sought out players from obscure leagues).

The result of all of this is that countries that are in whatever manner disadvataged, will not be able to bid on the best players but will instead bid on a lower tier of players.

With all of that said, it has not yet been considered that younger players are much cheaper than older players. I have a player that I believe has already quadrupled in value over one and a half seasons. If you buy the younger players and develop them on your own, you will save money on buying players that someone else develops and sells for a premium.

Developing players to eventually sell is also an area where some managers will make significant income. If you get a great 18 year old from your youth center, develop him, and sell him at an England-caliber price, you might be able to buy a better younger player to develop (though you might have weaker facilities so that weaker English players turn out to be worth as much as your player). Of course, this strategy is available to players from leagues of all sizes.

@Ulysses
I got your idea. But it seems we are so poor....:(

Why we can only buy young players and sell them to England....If the game is fair, we can have chance to be as powerful as the best team in England and Spain.Right?

It's unfortunate, but we will probably have to live with this fact. If you stick with the game until teams begin to max out their facilities, then the financial abilities of teams might begin to converge.

In any case, our teams and other teams fighting for first place in their respective leagues will be disadvantaged, but probably not so much that we won't continue to be fairly competitive. If someone focuses on money first and makes efficient decisions, that person could catch up to the teams making less efficient decisions (not that I've made sufficiently efficient decisions myself).

Aha, that is why with such unfairness I still get the first place in world pop ranking.:)
But I will go on suggesting Vincent to balance the differences between different countries. Since there are so many Chinese players waiting for a fair game.

Our league has 10 teams each level......

I wish I can play a 20-team league.

It's not fair, everyone wanna earn more, so do I.