Soccernomics, Global Leagues, TV Money and Quality

Why couldn't it break like college vs. pro football? College fb is arguably "less relevant", but manages pretty big television contracts.

 

Well that's just not correct. The biggest thing holding up a true international transfer market has always been Russia. I understand why it was during the USSR, but today it's just outrageous.

The mythical Super League will still have a breaking point, because there are limits to how far foreign fans will go. I'll use my roommate last year as an example. The guy has a Red Devil tattoo on his arm. He thinks he bleeds Man United; in reality, they're just his favorite team in the FIFA games.

Last year on April 30, he did not have work, and his classes on Mondays were over by noon. Somehow, we did not watch the Man City-Man U game on ESPN. I didn't care to watch, because I tuned out the rest of the EPL when I realized Kenny wouldn't cure all the problems at Anfield (oh, the shame of the Europa league!). But he should have been all about it. It's not like the usual Sunday excuse of "we were too hungover" comes into play.

The reality is, those live TV rights are only worth so much when you're six or seven hours off of the time zone where the game is actually happening. The number of van Persie and Gerrard jerseys hanging in American closets is higher than the number of eyeballs actually watching EPL games. I'd bet the same is true of many other power clubs and leagues and their North and South American fan bases. There comes a time where the ad revenue does not make up for the obscenely high TV contracts.

 

NFL has not reached that point yet, and their money is mostly local (USA), if the alledged Eurosuper league would still half the TV money audience from local leagues (EU), that could be a huge number.

 

Thinking about your post, if MLS does "lose" the TV market battle to the EPL, perhaps MLS's best strategy is expansion. The goal would be something north of 20 or 24 teams. If, in whatever time frame is economically feasible, the league had say 40 teams that canvassed most of America's regions, then more folks would have local sides that they could reasonably care about. I've always thought that the future growth of MLS was largely contingent on attracting the neutrals through ever lucrative TV contracts. Maybe this is a battle that can't be "won". Despite all the improvements, is there evidence that the neutrals have stopped droning on about Chelsea Blue, or how MLS sucks? The 1 bullet MLS does have, is that watching a soccer match is so much more enjoyable in the stands than from the couch. If MLS continues to prioritize the live game day experience, and expand its reach to more venues, it could be the "most relevant" league in America despite the insane money flowing into the EPL.

 

And obviously I can not argue against their local TV money. The bottom line is that these teams are exceptionally popular at home and abroad. However, how the popularity abroad translates to actual viewers is a different question.

The big key in this thread, as I see it, is that the foreign TV money puts these EPL clubs so far over the top that there is an insurmountable revenue gap. Clubs like Real Madrid and Inter Milan may be able to generate domestic TV money, but they will never catch up because of the foreign rights. However, I would posit that there is a bubble with the foreign TV money.

Granted, I did not take into account how much more a league would be worth if it were just the superpowers. I was initially thinking "okay, everyone makes £100 million a year, moving on." I do not know how to account for the increase you'd see from broadcasters who say "You mean we get to air Man U and Barcelona? At least twice a year? Here's a blank check, and would you like your sexual favors now or later?"

 

It goes without saying that we are just speculating here, but it will be interesting to see how responsive the owners are to the changing economic climate in world football in the next few years. Unlike other league in the U.S., MLS necessarily must react to what is happening in other leagues around them. And I think you are correct in pointing out that this is one such case, and that MLS is not alone in this regard. I've watched a number Eredivise games, and to frank, I would love for MLS to reach their level, both in terms of quality and excitement. That league is simply awesome. However, as with say the Australian or Chinese leagues, we are someone unique from Holland in that we do not have their history. But as they say, time is the great equalizer. So, despite the portents of this new EPL TV contract, and what my naturally pessimistic age can bear, I think the future of MLS looks very good indeed.

 

Damn right brother. Jurgen has such a burden on him. The 2014 nexus of TV contracts are at stake.

 

Its always the same narrative every year that soccer will grow if they make it far in the WC. Forgive me if I'm wrong but there wasn't really a huge surge after the 02 WC now was there?

 

How many teams and stadiums did MLS have at the time of the 02 WC?

 

Yeah MLS is pretty much exactly the same in every way, no major changes from 2002 - 2012.

 

The big sticking point there is that even now, few of the top sides are run with making a profit as the aim. Their quest is on-the-field success, with the money coming in used to give them an edge over their domestic rivals mainly, as well as most of the international elite as possible.

You have that super league, and while it would almost certainly mean more money for them than now, it would almost certainly mean giving up their "top dog" status. Even if you have an elite 20-30 clubs, half of them, if not more, will be seen to be mediocre every year.

You have to either have full attempts at parity, which would require the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid to accept potentially years of winning nothing, and possibly not even challenging, or you have a more open system which could consign clubs like Ajax or Benfica to permanent also-ran status.

FIFA could ban players from the world cup, but that would only be effective as long as the top players value playing in the world cup more than the super league. Once the top players started moving across, FIFA would pretty much have to cave in or see its showpiece severely devalued.

Players wouldn't be able to breach their contracts any more than any other contracted employee could, but the compensation for doing so would be far less than a transfer fee.

 

How does Rapid Vienna dominate Austria? In the last four (possibly more, I haven't checked) seasons they have no championships and the league has only 10 clubs.

 

That transfer agreement has expired, and it's easy to see why. A $200,000 flat fee for each player from a IIHF club? 200K for the next Jaromir Jagr? Now that is truly outrageous.

With such "generosity" from the NHL I wouldn't sign either.

A parity model (at a high level) would probably be the way to go with some kind of playoffs to keep things interesting. It would actually give clubs like Ajax or Benfica a chance to return to relevance. If run by UEFA (they could continue calling it Champions League for brand recognition) you could have at least one spot for promotion & relegation with the Europa League. More importantly, you could ensure that at least 20% of the Super League revenue gets shared with the Europa League and maybe even directly with national associations and leagues. That way you have some trickle down effect and continue to have a fair transfer system. Lastly, the Super League clubs could continue participating in the domestic FA Cup.

 

If Ajax had premier league style tv money, where would it put them in comparison to premier league teams?

After all, when Arsenal are pretty much admitting they can't compete with the real big spenders any more, it's almost as if the elite themselves are becoming stratified.

 

I feel that's more of a won't rather than can't. They run at a profit and won't change their business to a way that removes that profit. They have the revenue/monies to run a transfer policy above what they do now, especially with the stadium payment/debt easing more substantially now.

 

That would put them on par with Newcastle/Spurs maybe?

That's still miles behind the sort of money going into the big "five" as they really are now, let alone the similar figures, if not higher, for the elite elsewhere.

The risk of an elite within the elite is very real, and would be an awkward prospect for perhaps half of the clubs joining any elite league. Financially they might be better of in the new league, but in every other way, staying in the Dutch League could actually be better for Ajax, or even the German clubs.

And unlike England or Spain or Italy, who could lose several top clubs, a Dutch league which has not been stripped of its top sides wouldn't suddenly feel second rate.

 

The plans to slowly build soccer stadiums have always been the plan since the inception of the league. The US makes the quarterfinals and all of a sudden soccer stadiums sprout up? Hardly seems like a valid argument.

If you've followed the league there wasn't a major jump between 02 and 07. Actually the quality of the league suffered as the 02 WC stars started to make the jump over to Europe. The quality of the league started to take off when Beckham entered the fold. After Beckham joined there was higher sponsorship revenue, the salaries of players went up, and TV contracts got bigger. Hardly would say that this happened because of the 02 run and it happened despite a horrible 06 WC