Why does share cropping continue to exist as opposed to laborers renting land and paying for the rent with the proceeds of their harvest?

Scenario: Sharecropping vs. Land Renting

Sharecropping: A system where farmers cultivate a landowner's land. Upon harvest, both the farmer and the landowner receive a portion of the yield. Traditionally, it might be split 50-50, but the ratio can vary.

Land Renting (English system): Here, farmers rent the land for a fixed fee and retain all the harvest proceeds. Historically, many argue that the English system promotes greater investment and effort, translating to better yields. This means, on average, both the landowner and farmer benefit more compared to sharecropping. Yet, when crop prices plummet, the rent can sometimes exceed the harvest's worth in the English system.

Despite these advantages, why does sharecropping persist, especially when the system seems less profitable for both parties? Note: The answer isn't as simple as "sharecroppers don't own land." In many parts of the world, sharecroppers might both lease out their land and sharecrop on someone else's property simultaneously.