For FCD Dallas before I moved, I believe it was between 2016 and 2017 season the price of my tickets jumped from I believe $240 a seat to nearly $430 (also moved sections and back a bit to keep the costs down. There was a ton of backlash among the fans, but ultimately I think most people kept going, realizing that they were way underpriced in general (the price had barely gone up in the 10+ years I had seats there). This year I purchased a Rapids season ticket for the first time and am paying $340 for the cheapest non supporters seats (in the corners), but can't comment on how that compares to the past for the Rapids.
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56012549&itype=CMSID Ironically, DLH now has RSL profitable as of 2016. I'd love to know what cuts and revenue decisions he made to make that happen.
Point well taken, but diminished by a couple particulars: 1) This is exactly what you expect in a rising valuation environment during early years (big capital that can wait it out comes in and makes original capital whole) 2) Talking about owners mindset in general, abstracting from particular teams in particular eras, teams make quite a bit of cash. NFL and NBA print money (operating income = ~23% of revenue), but even hockey (15%) does well. I think that's consistent with the point of my post, which is that owners get richer by being owners, irrespective of their original motivation, and that the most typical path is one where cash and capital gains both contribute to growing their wealth. The metric scoachd1 is using is poorly designed for the case he is making, but so is this one. Dividend yield of 2% is only a fraction of net income (fluctuates, but currently around 30%), but total return of the market is inclusive of multiple changes. I think what you guys want is operating margins, if the goal is to compare profitability between sports and non-sports businesses. S&P500 lags the Big 4 there by a good amount.
In the end it was. My point was more for us to remind ourselves it used to be a lot rougher out there. new MLS fans don't know how good we've got it.
Even MLS, LLC sold 25% of SUM, LLC to a venture capital firm for cash. They later bought that 25% back, but at the time, the league needed the cash and that was cheaper than taking out loans.
Return and yield are different things. The former relates to an overall investment while the latter relates to payouts while holding while retaining an investment. The return you mentioned assumes yield is reinvested. Sports franchises are private so we don't really know how much money is being taken out (or if investment phase, like AFL, ABA or MLS how much money is being put in to grow the business).
Funny I thought this was an analysis forum (even if some aren't very good at it). Perhaps you might want to change the forum name to posts from digital sources and often uninformed opinions about them.
What are the things that support the massive increases in valuation? Other than the contribution of SUM. As you mentioned, attendance is limited to stadium size, and even by that measure it's declined. The typical MLS match ticket costs $48, which can't be a huge increase over the years. A big reason for the attendance sizes of Atlanta and Seattle probably have to do with playing in Top 5 NFL stadiums. People can pay $50 bucks or less to experience those stadiums rather than shelling out $200-300+ for NFL tickets. Dallas would probably see a jump of 10K+ if they played in the Cowboys dome. The sponsorship deal is a big bump, but you're not factoring in the expansion of the league. Adidas first became a sponsor in 2004, when there were 10 teams. It renewed the deal in 2010, when there were 16 teams. With 30 teams coming on board, expansion has obviously played a big role in the increase, and it also means that each team will only get a $4M/yr cut. In comparison, the NHL went from a $35M/yr deal with Reebok when the league had 30 teams, to a $120M/yr deal with Adidas with a 31 league team. Although the deals are virtually the same, the circumstances are very different. The true measure of support is TV ratings, and the fact that it isn't the biggest revenue driver for MLS should be a concern. The expansion angle will justify an increase, but what else has changed since the last deal, other than the playoffs being cut in half? As I pointed out, ESPN had better MLS ratings a decade ago. The debate/sports talk shows on ESPN and FS1 completely ignore MLS during the season, despite those networks owning the television rights. MLS apologists bring up the social media aspect to counter the stagnant or declining ratings, but neglect the fact that the US population has grown by about 30M people in the last ten years, with a very favorable demographic shift towards soccer. MLS is simply underperforming with soccer fans and this collaboration with LigaMX acknowledges that they need help attracting more soccer fans. It might draw more interest, but it'll also severely damage the Champions League when the top two leagues in CONCACAF are actively promoting competitive games against each other. I consider $150M/yr a much more realistic figure for the next TV deal than the $300-500M/yr that many on here probably are expecting. I don't see a failing league, but I also don't view MLS as thriving like most on here do, which only highlights how low the bar has been set. I see it as a league that continues to survive but will never be perceived as a threat to the four major American sports leagues unless it makes a number of changes to the actual product. Soccer is already more popular than hockey and approaching baseball and basketball in popularity, a trend that will continue, but I don't envision MLS in its current format competing with the NHL, MLB, or NBA.
SUM was valued at $2 billion in 2017. That works out at $6.7 million per team, including the expansion teams.