I mentioned this to crickets on Facebook last night, so I'm going to post it here to give
@roadkill1292 an aneurysm.
I think the Bob Bradley story shows how pro/rel rewards ugly/pragmatic soccer. Guys like Big Sam, who are considered specialists in getting teams out of relegation trouble, do so by emphasizing defensive organization and physical, opportunistic football. Essentially make the team hard to beat and hope that you can use the Route One approach well enough to steal your share of goals. Bob came in (with the mandate to try to play "the Swansea way" because Guidolin was a pragmatic manager) and he tried to press higher up the field and use the ball more. This was probably the right approach to improve the team in the long run. But it was precisely the wrong approach when he had 30 games to make the team safe or risk losing the club a truckload of money.
For all the benefits of competition, that competition crowds out a lot of fun stuff. There might be teams in the BPL right now who have academy players who might be a fraction worse right now than established veteran players, but who have much bigger upsides. In the long run, playing the academy players would be the right move, except no team can afford to play those players in the name of being better in 2018 because they can't afford to crash out of the BPL now. Of course the counter argument is that MLS teams don't play academy players enough even with relative stability, but I think that's largely because conventional wisdom has been handed down from European leagues.
I don't say any of this to claim that pro/rel is "bad." I don't think any system of organization is "bad." But they all create different incentives that change how the game is played. I think he US pro/rel advocates are blind to the negative incentives that pro/rel creates in European leagues.