Average net loss per year (from 2001 to 2005) from transfer fees Chelsea: $83.7 million a year Real Madrid: $41.67 million a year Manchester United: $36 million a year Barcelona: $25 million a year AC Milan: $22 million a year Liverpool: $15.2 million a year Juventus: $15 million a year Arsenal: $3 million a year Inter Milan: $3 million a year Too see the break-down on each year and on each player, go to these threads. Liverpool https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268783 Arsenal https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6756316#post6756316 Chelsea https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6756302#post6756302 Manchester United https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268343 REal Madrid: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268351 Barcelona: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268585 AC Milan: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268780 Inter Milan: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268782 If I have time, I will do one for Bayern Munich and Valencia.
To prove that those teams lose money on transfer fees. To show those interested how much money those teams lost each year. To show that NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL's top 2-3 teams do not lose money on any transfer fees, while soccer's top 5-7 teams lost money. And the amount is quite large.
You do realize that there is no such thing as transfer fees in American sports? The reason those clubs are big is because they have the money to go out and buy the most expensive players in the world.
Of course. Of course. But they could have got the players for free and in return, the players would get a bigger contract. That's why soccer's highest paid player makes $12 million a year, while baseball's highest makes $26 million a year and basketball's $29 million a year [basketball don't count cuzz it has only 15 players on the roster] Of course I realized that. I spent an hour or two of my time to see how much 'these clubs' lost on average each year because in soccer there is a transfer market, not a free agency market. I was surprised to see Arsenal losing so little. Same with Inter Milan.
It's a crusade? It's absurd? Oh, soccer is my hobby. If you don't want to see the transfer fees gain and loss, don't click on this thread and don't read it. Also, there is the ignore button.
Even though they lose money on transfers alot make it up through revenue. I heard on FSC Real Madrid made something like 350 million, but ManU's was down by alot from previous years.
I do not think the club understood that they are losing money on transfer fees. The transfer fees are investments and the clubs expected the returns come from elsewhere.
How can you compare it when those teams do not pay transfer fees? How can you compare it when those leagues use salary caps and luxury taxes? Not to mention compare the populaion of the USA and how many teams per city there are and look at a country like England and a city like London(11 teams alone?) The whole comparison is absurd and serves no purpose, you have "proven" big clubs spend more money on transfer fees than they sell, I think everyone here knew that. Look at a team like the NEw York yankees(closest thing to a european soccer club), they bring in more players every season(without trimming other players to cacel out the financial additions) they dont win it all, increase their payroll, and will lose money to the luxury tax, but it does not matter. They have the financial clout to take that loss, and realize it is an investment and a reason why they are by far and away the most successful financial team in MLB by a longshot.
It seems like a loss because: Top NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL teams spend ZERO transfer dollars to get top star players. Top soccer teams has a $25-30 million transfer fees expense each year in order to get top star players. If it is FREE, the bottom line (income) would increase by $25-30 million each year for teams like Chelsea/Man U/REal/Ac Milan/Barcelona. It's like paying $40 for a MP3 player when your friend get the same MP3 for FREE. The $40 is not a loss, but it might seem like it. Also, I haven't done any research on transfer fees in the National Hockey League yet, but I heard that a good % of their players come from Northern Europe/Eastern Europe and transfer fees in NHL is pretty rare transfers. I will go to the Hockey forum and ask for help.
The point that they are sports leagues and they are in the sports business. Yet soccer has a different model that do not benefit their top teams. And do you know what? I am loving that fact. SCREW all those RICH teams. SCREW THE G-14 (18) for the fact of wanting FIFA to compensate them for their players for the WORLD CUP when those money can be given back to develop soccer at the grassroots for the poor nations around the world. The rich is just getting greedier. But that is a different topic. As a fan of MLS, I love soccer's transfer market because in the years to come, MLS might be more in the receiving end instead of the paying end. MLS right now is in need of income to be better. Each millions extra in revenue can only help. If baseball, hockey and baseball have a transfer fees markets too, the sports league in South America, Europe, Asia will be better off because they getting something for their talents instead of NOTHING.
Who cares? You did this all simply because you do not like the way leagues are run and the big teams? What a waste of your own time. This is nothing more than amindless ramble of an envious MLS fan with Euro envy appearently.
You do alot of talking and not a lot of listening. In this case, reading. Baseball, hockey and basketball do have transfer fee markets. The NHL has an agreement with other federations on transfer fees, with only Russia abstaining and negotiating their own transfer fees. The NBA pays fees. They paid for Yao Ming. They paid for Pau Gasol. Etc. Baseball has a tradition of opening academies in Latin America, much like European soccer teams opening academies here in the US. Where baseball doesn't have academies like Japan, they sign players when they are out of contract, after 10 years, on a Bosman, to use soccer parlance. That's why all the japanese stars that come over are in their late 20s, they are free agents. And, even some come early. I think it was Kaz Matsui that came over after 9 years, and his japanese team got a transfer fee. I've posted in other threads that you have started that North American sports do have transfer fees. They are just hidden by two simultaneous transactions, and all you see is the difference. I think when Randy Johnson went to the Yankees, and the Yankees sent Vasquez to Arizona, they added something like $10 million, the agreed upon difference in the values of their future contract years. Also, I posted in another of your threads that transfer fees indirectly affect payroll. If you have $200 million budgeted for payroll, but spend $70 million on transfers, that does not mean you only have $130 million left for salaries. I believe that was your hypothetical. You take the $70 million, and amortize it, as a capital cost. If the average contract life for those players you acquired on transfer is 5 years, then you amortize 1/5th of the $70 million. That's the amount your operating budget is affected, 1/5th of $70 million, NOT $70 million! Please ask your accountant how businesses differentiate between operating and capital expenses. It's the same in soccer and sports as it is in the business world.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but the point stands that most top clubs spend major amounts in the transfer market every season. Therefore while you may spread the costs of one season's transfers over the next 5 years, you are likely to still be depreciating previous years' purchases, and so the cost is likely to remain level.
European basketball clubs do receive transfer fees ,but the NBA only pays about 500 000 dollars. The player himself has to come up with the rest.