There are of course many people (still) watching. However the numbers are declining fast: Google translate: The Champions League final between Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool, which ended in 0-2, caught over 1.7 million viewers on Veronica on Saturday night. With that, the channel attracted 39 percent of all viewers in prime time. This is according to figures from Stichting KijkOnderzoek. Last year, the Champions League final recorded the least watched edition since SKO started measuring audience ratings in 2002. Then Real Madrid - Liverpool attracted more than 1.5 million viewers (36 percent). The other least viewed finals were Real Madrid - Atlético Madrid with nearly 1.7 million viewers in 2016 and Real Madrid - Bayer Leverkusen with 1.6 million viewers in 2002. The most viewed final since the measurement began is FC Barcelona - Manchester United with 3.4 million viewers in 2011. At that time, the Champions League could still be seen on public broadcasting. So despite a very large Dutch component at Liverpool the number of viewers since 2011 has declined. But what comes out of the numbers too is that certain clubs are very impopular in the Netherlands, judging by the numbers. It's simply a fact that in Europe the people watching CL matches has been steadily declining. The worst it was in the UK: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-sports-dismal-champions-league-viewing-figu/ Compare those superstars with the number for Orange ladies WC Final, 5.5 million Dutch watching them.
The point however isnot the Final, which in itself will draw huge interest. A superleague has no final, it's simply a competition on financial steroids. The point is that interest in the CL matches going to the Final has been going downhill. That's what one has to compare with a potential superleague. The idea that the matches between the big clubs would sell as hot cakes proved wrong. So how is that going to be different with a label SL instead of CL?
This is a good point. However, CL revenue paid out to clubs since 2011, the year you noted above, has increased from €1.1 billion to€ 2.1 billion, and the revenue looks to be on a path of growth through 2024, the year people seem to be targeting as the year of pro-rel coming to the CL (which makes it, sort of, pretty much, the Super League we've been talking about). The financial goal of the clubs backing a super league isn't to attract the most viewers, but the viewers who will bring in the most money. I get it, this in many ways is pissing on tradition. But this thread has been looking at the unavoidable reality of digital disruption and the trend is pretty clear. Massive popularity without a corresponding revenue stream doesn't matter so much. We return to the newspaper industry for an example. Readership of news content by the top US newspaper companies has been climbing year over year since website readership started kicking in. By 2009, most companies had record breaking readership. they did not then, and have not yet, figured out a way of turning that popularity into revenue. The CL took the other path, fewer viewers meant more revenue. The ECA is looking for a way to make that predictable. BTW, among the ECA members who are in discussions about a superleague: PSV • Ajax • Twente • AZ • Feyenoord • Heerenveen • Utrecht • Vitesse. To restate this: Feyenoord is among them. Obviously, not all clubs are in favor of a breakaway league, many ECA members would not be considered part of that league. But they are in discussions about shaping future revenue. And it is worth noting that the DFB resistance to a superleague hasn't been that it isn't feasible, it's been it would "destroy national leagues." You may be right. There may be a ton of money on the table and football clubs are willing to let it sit there because they already have a ton of money from other sources.
I'm not in that argument of the DFB, as I see too much fear and too little confidence in what national leagues mean. However I could be wrong and the test is when a SL emerges. The biggest caveat is how the EU is going to react. There already have been warnings that the national leagues (and their importance as breading grounds for national teams) is considered cultural heritage and a SL that threatens that can count on measures to protect that heritage. How that materialises is of course an unknown but that it's a threat is for sure. Another spanner could be the Brexit. As epl clubs are among the most popular in the digital non Europe world, it's going to be an organisational problem, fiscallly, work permits, applicable laws- EU or UK.
Iirc that increase was from outside Europe and it in the last year compensated less revenues from Europe. So if this is correct it looks like diminishing interest, old school or modern digital style, in Europe offset by increasing revenues from the rest of the world. However this can't be healthy in the long run. There's a reason for that erosion, it's the predictability of the CL after the last 32 go into the ko rounds. Year in, year out it's the same story, with last season's exception by Ajax and Tottenham. Institutionalising that boredom by erasing upsets (wish of the superclubs) it's going to enforce the trend of less interest. It's dangerous to loose the homeground interest of the sport.
I'm not sure this argument tracks. If you're talking about losing the home ground interest, that would imply losing the interest of your own community. Have we seen evidence of that. Looking at the average attendence for CL matches, it pretty much matches league attendence for the super clubs, and that is despite the fact that it isn't an apples to apples comparison, week nights are much tougher sells than weekends, and CL groups do not now adhere to the super league notion. I mean, look at ManCity's group, Waxtap (shaktar whereever), Atalanta, D Zagreb, are something less than a superclub lineup, but the numbers from last season indicate the tickets will sell pretty well. Were they weekend matches, do you think they wouldn't sell out? Fans of a club are fans of that club, and want to watch that club play. If the non-local but nationwide audience of BMunch or Juve or Sporting Lisbon or Barca or ... declines while the international audience increases, and the games are moving towards a gameday streaming ticket model for revenue, does it matter where the out of town revenue is generated? Does it matter for traditional television if the primary advertizers are the sort who cross borders, cars/tires/electronics brands and crap Dutch beer? I think there is a reason this idea is being pushed by the BMunch's of the world. You may be right, but a lot of the people with the most money invested in the game are betting in the other direction.
I wasnot talking about the direct club fanbase like stadium attendance and viewership, digital or old school. I was talking about the Europe wide viewership. That has been declining, making the Europe based interest gradually falling back to local interest. The Ajax run into the semi final boosted the viewership of the CL in the Netherlands. The interest in the CL Final was meh, especially considering two top Dutch players with a superb contribution to the Liverpool run were playing. The interest for the Orange Lionesses WC2019 Final was triple that of the UEFA CL Final. That tells alot.
The WWC final was quite a popular game in the Netherlands. Just out of curiousity, was the final broadcast, or was in a subscription only telecast? Here, it was Sky sports. But the point of this is not who got the bigger viewership, it's which broadcast made more money. My bet is that the CL final produced more revenue. Cutting their audience by selling the license to cable and satellite providers was an intentional move, and one they knew would reduce viewership
If I understand your question correctly, the answer is thathat both the WC2019 Final and the CL 2019 Final were on the open net. No subscription fees were needed. Also the Liverpool-Tottenham Supercup was viewable without subscription. I wonder, if that deliberate policy of the UEFA of swapping from open channel to closed subscription sources is true, what sponsors of clubs are thinking about that paradigm shift in the UEFA policy. They pay for eyeballs, but the shift is to less of that. To put it bluntly, in the old school system sponsors were fishing with a huge net, catching both well to do football fans and the less well to do. In the new UEFA setting they pay the same (to clubs and UEFA), but de facto get less. I can't see that that's going to be sustainable. At the Superbowl it's the eyeball numbers that determine what sponsors are willing to pay per minute. If that eyeball number would go down I'm pretty sure those sponsors wouldnot be prepared to pay as much. I wonder if what you state about that UEFA policy is true. Got a source of that? I'm pretty sure from the EU there was a message that the UEFA club finals are European heritage and cannot go behind a paywall.
A couple links:http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/deutsche-telekom-acquires-bundesliga-and-champions-league-rights AND: this, which I apologize as it is a wiki page, but lists who has the rights to broadcast the UEFA CL worldwide all in one place. And then there's this (UEFA's official position on article 165 as it regards to media rights): 2.3. Encouraging the centralised and territorial sale of audiovisual rights for sports competitions The sale of audiovisual media rights is a major source of income for European sport. In most Member States, the federation or league sells the rights centrally in order to maximise efficiency and provide the necessary financial solidarity. By sharing revenues generated between the participating teams and by directing a proportion of it to the “grass roots”, the governing bodies are able to promote fairness in competitions, train referees and coaches, combat doping, racism and violence, fund social projects and, more broadly, contribute to the sustainable development of their sport. Additionally, just as the organisation of sport is deeply rooted at local level, broadcasting of competitions follows the principle of territoriality, with respect for the cultural diversity of the EU member states. Several decisions of the European Commission, as well as the European Parliament have recognised the benefits and legitimacy of the current system2 . At the same time, however, there are threats to the established system of territorial licensing which need to be addressed. (vii) UEFA invites the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the Member States to express their full support for the system of the centralised, exclusive and territorial sale of audiovisual rights for sports competitions. BACK TO MY COMMENTS (sorry, wanted to bold or italicize UEFA's position but it wasn't working). That, to me, seems to say that each EU member has the right to determine what's in the best interests of their nation regarding broadcast rights. I note that Nederland includes both a free to air and a subscription option. France, Germany, however, do not offer a free option. There might be an Europe wide exemption for a CL final, but I don't see it in UEFA policy. Please let me know if I am.
I donot know either. The only thing I remember was within the EU comments were made about soccer being a European heritage and important matches must be free to watch, so not behind paywalls (like the SL would be, but they could have been hinting at national teams finals too). I however have not found since then something in concrete terms, but that could be behind the scenes business. These things take a long time to prepare. Your guess at the moment is the better one as it's based on published policies.
Ajax and Spurs are spending enough money to become super clubs. Both have the advantage of long and illustrious youth programs.
So Deloitte came up with their 2019 revenues for the top 20 soccer clubs in the World. All 20 are in Europe, but #20 has revenues of just over 200 million Euros/ (you have to download it) https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag.../articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html To compare here are guesstimates on the NHL and NBA from 2017-2018. https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/ So the top NBA team was the nicks at around 440 million USD, about half of the top soccer team Barcelona. The 20th team in the NBA had revenues of 235 million USD, that seems to be close to the 203 million Euros (depending on the exchange rate) of the 20th soccer team.
To be pedantic, they published the top 20 clubs by revenue, not the revenues of the top 20 clubs. Search for Deloitte Football Money League on Wikipedia and you'll get the figures for each season.