Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top player?

superdave · Jan 6, 2006

Pro/rel flattens the graph, too.

Imagine if one of the really bad New York Rangers teams had been relegated to NHL.2, and been forced to flood the market with their highly-paid players. Imagine if the Orioles had been relegated and forced to flood the market with their highly paid veterans.

Middling teams like Middlesborough won't compete to sign a big-name player, because there's that risk that they'll be like Leeds was, or like Everton has almost been a few times recently, and then they'll be in a bad position. So there are fewer teams bidding for soccer superstars.

In baseball, the Tigers were able to sign Ivan Rodriguez because they KNEW they wouldn't get relegated. That increases the "demand" side for superstars, which increases their price.

RichardL · Jan 6, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

JohnR said:

Yep.

Because transfer fees flow from big to small, the big clubs have fewer dollars to spend on salaries than they otherwise would, and the smaller clubs have more. Thus, the soccer salary curve is flattened, such that the elite players receive less than they otherwise would and the huddled masses receive more.

I think that's pretty clear and correct. Transfer fees do not alter the overall level of salaries paid in the European professional game, but they alter the shape of the salary graph.
Click to expand...

pc4th said:

Big clubs lost money on transfers. That's a fact. I did the calculation and this is how much they lost each year.

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

My argument is that if they lost $0 instead of the $30-35 million, they would be able to pay players more. It's simple as that. How much more? I don't know. Probably $3-4 million to the #1 star player on the team and maybe nothing for the #8 best player on the team.
Click to expand...

you don't think if clubs had 30% more money to spend on salaries then everyone would have 30% more?

If not, why not, as that's exactly what's happened for the last 15 years or so as revenues have risen vastly, far more than 30%?

Can't you just accept that in American sports the feeling is that star players should be paid vastly more than the others, but the same feeling doesn't exist elsewhere? Indeed, it would be seen as detrimental to team spirit.

And please for once, answer this question

why don't team with similar salary budgets in American sports compared to european ones have the same pay scales? If they have the same salary budgets then it's not possible to be because of transfer fees forcing salaries down, as the salary budget are at the same level.

JohnR · Jan 9, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

RichardL said:

you don't think if clubs had 30% more money to spend on salaries then everyone would have 30% more?
Click to expand...

No, I suppose that I don't.

why don't team with similar salary budgets in American sports compared to european ones have the same pay scales? If they have the same salary budgets then it's not possible to be because of transfer fees forcing salaries down, as the salary budget are at the same level.
Click to expand...

Happy to address that. This strikes me as an outgrowth of the flattening of salary budgets that occurs because of transfer fees. At each level of play, the teams at the next level below have more money than they otherwise would, so therefore the players at that level (let's say Colaship) are better paid than they might be. Therefore, the clubs at the next level (i.e., Premiership) must pay more money than they otherwise would be required to for the bottom half of their roster, that is for the guys who could also be playing in the Colaship. And it ripples upwards from there. Can't get bottom half players on the cheap because they can always make good money in the Colaship. Gotta pay the starting players more than the bottom half players. Gotta pay the stars more than the regular starters. Somebody's gotta get less than they otherwise might. Yep, the superstars.

I won't deny that there is something to the team spirit argument. When it comes to CEO salaries, too, the rest of the world doesn't fully buy the U.S. argument that the biggest guns are worth really big paychecks. I just don't see the cultural issue as the only issue.

rangers00 · Jan 9, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

pc4th said:

Try to pick apart this claim:

FACT:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268786

assumption/hypothetical world

If there is no transfer fees and a big club like Man U would get players through free agency. It would have $36 million extra in profit each year [over the past 5 years].

Manchester United buying the top free agents like Rio, Ruud, C. Ronaldo, Rooney, Giggs, Van der Sar, and Park using the extra $36 million.

Edwin Van der Sar: $1 million extra
Rio Ferdinand: $4 million extra
Ryan Giggs: $2 million extra
Cristiano Ronaldo: $2 million extra
Wayne Rooney: probably get $3 million extra
Ruud van Nistelrooy: probably get $4 million extra a year

Total: $16 million in extra paid.
Other: $12.8 million for the rest of the players in extra paid.
Team: $7 million in profit left-over.
Click to expand...

Your original claim is to use the transfer system as the SOLE explanation of the discrepancy of salaries between American superstars and Euro soccer superstars.

Now that this conjecture is going nowhere, you have to give RVN a mere $4 million raise?

RVN is one of the top players in the Premiership. Is his $4M raise going to put him in the basketball/baseball/NFL superstars' salary level? Something like $20M level?

You cite a lot of numbers, about all these top clubs losing money on transfer. They are NOT supporting arguments to your conjectures, simply because you split the transfer money saved among all the players, not for one player to bag all the transfer money saved.

In other words, your original conjecture was shot. Now you have to settle for a much weaker argument: players are simply paid more (but not at American superstars' level).

RichardL · Jan 9, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

JohnR said:

Happy to address that. This strikes me as an outgrowth of the flattening of salary budgets that occurs because of transfer fees. At each level of play, the teams at the next level below have more money than they otherwise would, so therefore the players at that level (let's say Colaship) are better paid than they might be. Therefore, the clubs at the next level (i.e., Premiership) must pay more money than they otherwise would be required to for the bottom half of their roster, that is for the guys who could also be playing in the Colaship. And it ripples upwards from there. Can't get bottom half players on the cheap because they can always make good money in the Colaship. Gotta pay the starting players more than the bottom half players. Gotta pay the stars more than the regular starters. Somebody's gotta get less than they otherwise might. Yep, the superstars.
.
Click to expand...

that doesn't really have any correlation with transfer fees, just that there's pressure to pay lower players more than exists in American sports because unlike them, clubs outside the top division are in competition for those players.

If there were no transfer fees, the same would happen. There may be more cash to share out, but it'd still happen because CCC wouldn't be paying transfer fees either, so they'd also have more money to spend.

Contrast that situation to basketball, where not only are salaries capped, but there's nowhere else for the lower players to go. Clubs here can't adopt the same "like it or lump it" approach or they'd have a team with half a dozen stars and the rest of the team filled with youth prospects.

I'd say from that that the reason for different pay structures isn't transfer fees, it the far better seller's market for average players.

JohnR · Jan 10, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

RichardL said:

say from that that the reason for different pay structures isn't transfer fees, it the far better seller's market for average players.
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. The root cause is indeed the excellent seller's market for average players. However, the secondary cause is the transfer market, which systematically funnels revenues to the lower-level clubs so that they can better pay average players.

The transfer market isn't the only redistribution scheme for funnelling money from rich to poor, but it appears to be the most powerful one. Items like gate sharing and (for the most part, I guess that the lower leagues do receive a bit of TV money but not a lot) broadcasting revenues won't cross league lines, but transfer fees will.

RichardL · Jan 10, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

JohnR said:

OK, fair enough. The root cause is indeed the excellent seller's market for average players. However, the secondary cause is the transfer market, which systematically funnels revenues to the lower-level clubs so that they can better pay average players.

The transfer market isn't the only redistribution scheme for funnelling money from rich to poor, but it appears to be the most powerful one. Items like gate sharing and (for the most part, I guess that the lower leagues do receive a bit of TV money but not a lot) broadcasting revenues won't cross league lines, but transfer fees will.
Click to expand...

the amount of money going to lower level clubs has (comparitely) diminished over the last decade or so thanks to the Bosman ruling, and the top clubs sweeping up all the hottest prospects into their academy systems.

Transfers like the £7 million sale of Peter Crouch from then (technically) CCC level Southampton are very rare indeed. I'm certain they'd have got nowhere near that if he hadn't done the business in the premiership. You certainly never see £10 million+ type fees going to lower division clubs.

And don't forget, lower lever clubs also pay transfer fees. I'd say it's almost certain that CCC clubs made a net loss on transfers too.

pc4th · May 18, 2006

Ballack: $20.5 million a year + seven figure signing-on fee/bonus

THE GAP IS CLOSING FAST vs. baseball, basketball and surpassing NFL and NHL. Ballack is getting $20.5 million a year

Ballack's £121,000 a week (after tax)
http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/chelsea/article485002.ece

The 29-year-old German has agreed a three-year deal with Chelsea on a free transfer from Bayern Munich. The split, after four seasons in Bavaria, has been as acrimonious as it is lucrative for Ballack, who will add a seven-figure signing-on fee - spread over the duration of his contract - to his substantial salary. The deal is thought to work out at £121,000 a week. After tax.
Click to expand...

Tax rate for footballer in England is around 40%. This would make his salary £201,666 a week before tax and £121,000 a week after tax.

£201,666 a week = $20,553,798 a year at the current exchange rate.
Beside the $20.5 mil a year, he will get a seven-figure signing-on fee.

The next highest paid footballer in the world is Ronaldinho at $10.2 million a year (though it might be around $11 million since the dollar depreciated)

PLAYER SALARY (TOTAL EARNINGS)

1. Ronaldinho (Barcelona) $10.2 million ($28.6 million)
2. David Beckham (Real Madrid) $7.7 million ($21.6 million)
3. Ronaldo (Real Madrid) $7.7 million ($20.7 million)
4. Wayne Rooney (Man. Utd.) $6.2 million ($19.3 million)
5. Christian Vieri (Monaco) $4.8 million (19.2 million)
6. Zinedine Zidane (Real Madrid) $7.7 million ($18 million)
7. Alessandro Del Piero (Juventus) $5 million ($13.8 million)
8. Frank Lampard (Chelsea) $8.6 million ($11.8 million)
9. Thierry Henry (Arsenal) $5.4 million ($11.8 million)
10. John Terry (Chelsea) $7.1 million ($11.6 million)

Thierry Henry will likely become a free agent. His contract is up in 12 months. I am sure he looks at his $5.4 mil and compares it with Ballack's $20.5 mil.

Stan Collins · May 18, 2006

Re: Ballack: $20.5 million a year + seven figure signing-on fee/bonus

It strikes me as odd they'd double the salary of the next highest-paid player.

pc4th · May 18, 2006

Re: Ballack: $20.5 million a year + seven figure signing-on fee/bonus

Stan Collins said:

It strikes me as odd they'd double the salary of the next highest-paid player.
Click to expand...

It is. I knew that Ballack would be the highest paid player but didn't expect it to be that much. I was thinking at most $15 mil a year.

But remember, Ballack went to Chelsea on a FREE transfer. He is worth around $30 million (14 million pounds) on the transfer market. Instead of paying Munich that $30 million, it now goes to Ballack. Hence, the huge increase.

What I am most curious about is that why didn't they just pay Ballack $10 million a year and give him $30 million in a signing-on fee? That way, his wages would be comparable to other Chelsea players.

psveindhoven · May 19, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

Just because the clubs have less money and more players i guess:

1 Manchester United (Manchester, England) € 184 000 000 Average attendance: 68 000
2 Real Madrid (Madrid, Spain) € 163 000 000 Average attendance: 71 000
3 Bayern München (München, Germany) € 144 000 000 Average attendance: 67 000
4 Milan (Milano, Italy) € 141 000 000 Average attendance: 58 000
5 Juventus (Torino, Italy) € 139 000 000 Average attendance: 28 000
6 Lazio (Roma, Italy) € 125 000 000 Average attendance: 27 000
7 Chelsea (London, England) € 121 000 000 Average attendance: 41 000
8 Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) € 118 000 000 Average attendance: 70 000
9 Internazionale (Milano, Italy) € 108 000 000 Average attendance: 51 000
10 Roma (Roma, Italy) € 101 000 000 Average attendance: 39 000
11 Arsenal (London, England) € 96 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
12 Borussia Dortmund (Dortmund, Germany) € 94 000 000 Average attendance: 72 000
13 Leeds United (Leeds, England) € 90 000 000 Average attendance: 22 000
14 Fiorentina (Firenze, Italy) € 85 000 000 Average attendance: 32 000
15 Rangers (Glasgow, Scotland) € 81 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
16 Olympique de Marseille (Marseille, France) € 78 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
17 Tottenham Hotpsur (London, England) € 75 000 000 Average attendance: 36 000
18 Parma (Parma, Italy) € 75 000 000 Average attendance: 14 000
19 Liverpool (Liverpool, England) € 73 000 000 Average attendance: 44 000
20 Newcastle United (Newcastle, England) € 71 000 000 Average attendance: 51 000
21 Girondins de Bordeaux (Bordeaux, France) € 66 000 000 Average attendance: 23 000
22 Celtic (Glasgow, Scotland) € 61 000 000 Average attendance: 58 000
23 Sunderland (Sunderland, England) € 58 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
24 Aston Villa (Birmingham, England) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 34 000
25 West Ham United (London, England) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
26 Lens (Lens, France) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
27 Paris Saint-Germain (Paris, France) € 55 000 000 Average attendance: 40 000
28 Bayer Leverkusen (Leverkusen, Germany) € 53 000 000 Average attendance: 22 000
29 Hertha (Berlin, Germany) € 53 000 000 Average attendance: 43 000
30 Galatasaray (Istanbul, Turkey) € 52 000 000 Average attendance: 24 000
31 Boca Juniors (Buenos Aires, Argentina) € 52 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
32 Olympique Lyonnais (Lyon, France) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
33 Ajax (Amsterdam, Netherlands) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 47 000
34 Flamengo (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 14 000
35 Everton (Liverpool, England) € 44 000 000 Average attendance: 36 000
36 Kaiserslautern (Kaiserslautern, Germany) € 44 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
37 Corinthians (São Paulo, Brazil) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 10 000
38 Middlesbrough (Middlesbrough, England) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 28 000
39 Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 31 000
40 River Plate (Buenos Aires, Argentina) € 41 000 000 Average attendance: 35 000

Rommul · May 19, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

psveindhoven said:

Just because the clubs have less money and more players i guess:

1 Manchester United (Manchester, England) € 184 000 000 Average attendance: 68 000
2 Real Madrid (Madrid, Spain) € 163 000 000 Average attendance: 71 000
3 Bayern München (München, Germany) € 144 000 000 Average attendance: 67 000
4 Milan (Milano, Italy) € 141 000 000 Average attendance: 58 000
5 Juventus (Torino, Italy) € 139 000 000 Average attendance: 28 000
6 Lazio (Roma, Italy) € 125 000 000 Average attendance: 27 000
7 Chelsea (London, England) € 121 000 000 Average attendance: 41 000
8 Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) € 118 000 000 Average attendance: 70 000
9 Internazionale (Milano, Italy) € 108 000 000 Average attendance: 51 000
10 Roma (Roma, Italy) € 101 000 000 Average attendance: 39 000
11 Arsenal (London, England) € 96 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
12 Borussia Dortmund (Dortmund, Germany) € 94 000 000 Average attendance: 72 000
13 Leeds United (Leeds, England) € 90 000 000 Average attendance: 22 000
14 Fiorentina (Firenze, Italy) € 85 000 000 Average attendance: 32 000
15 Rangers (Glasgow, Scotland) € 81 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
16 Olympique de Marseille (Marseille, France) € 78 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
17 Tottenham Hotpsur (London, England) € 75 000 000 Average attendance: 36 000
18 Parma (Parma, Italy) € 75 000 000 Average attendance: 14 000
19 Liverpool (Liverpool, England) € 73 000 000 Average attendance: 44 000
20 Newcastle United (Newcastle, England) € 71 000 000 Average attendance: 51 000
21 Girondins de Bordeaux (Bordeaux, France) € 66 000 000 Average attendance: 23 000
22 Celtic (Glasgow, Scotland) € 61 000 000 Average attendance: 58 000
23 Sunderland (Sunderland, England) € 58 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
24 Aston Villa (Birmingham, England) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 34 000
25 West Ham United (London, England) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
26 Lens (Lens, France) € 56 000 000 Average attendance: 33 000
27 Paris Saint-Germain (Paris, France) € 55 000 000 Average attendance: 40 000
28 Bayer Leverkusen (Leverkusen, Germany) € 53 000 000 Average attendance: 22 000
29 Hertha (Berlin, Germany) € 53 000 000 Average attendance: 43 000
30 Galatasaray (Istanbul, Turkey) € 52 000 000 Average attendance: 24 000
31 Boca Juniors (Buenos Aires, Argentina) € 52 000 000 Average attendance: 49 000
32 Olympique Lyonnais (Lyon, France) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
33 Ajax (Amsterdam, Netherlands) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 47 000
34 Flamengo (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) € 46 000 000 Average attendance: 14 000
35 Everton (Liverpool, England) € 44 000 000 Average attendance: 36 000
36 Kaiserslautern (Kaiserslautern, Germany) € 44 000 000 Average attendance: 38 000
37 Corinthians (São Paulo, Brazil) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 10 000
38 Middlesbrough (Middlesbrough, England) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 28 000
39 Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) € 43 000 000 Average attendance: 31 000
40 River Plate (Buenos Aires, Argentina) € 41 000 000 Average attendance: 35 000
Click to expand...

What are these numbers? Yearly salary budgets? If so some are way off. Divide that Boca Juniors number by about 7 and you will have a more accurate number.

liverpool8 · Jun 27, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

The answer is simple... soccer players are not unionized

SoccerScout · Jun 27, 2006

These salaries are insane...in th mid 90's the best baseball players made if Im not mistaken...2...3...or 4 Million a year......20, 30 is completely insane.

geordienation · Jun 27, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

Rommul said:

What are these numbers? Yearly salary budgets? If so some are way off. Divide that Boca Juniors number by about 7 and you will have a more accurate number.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure those are revenue figures, not salaries.

Rommul · Jun 27, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

geordienation said:

Pretty sure those are revenue figures, not salaries.
Click to expand...

Can't be.

1. Boca Juniors does not make 52 mill per year, if they did they wouldn't need to take the 17 million that they did for Tevez. Their salary budget is about 6-7 million.

2. Everton and Boro are not on the same plane in terms of revenues.

3. Lyon spent about 94 million on salaries in the 2005 season so that number is way off.

4 There is no way in hell Boca makes more money than Corinthians (probably the most well supported club in Brasil) even if you factor out their new backers.

I don't know what these numbers represent.

sidis · Jul 11, 2006

Re: Why is the top soccer player getting paid a lot less than NBA, NFL, MLB top playe

the TV transmission quote in brazil is bigger than argentina.

each 5 greatest tv share teams get R$20 millions (U$10 millions) plus a % of pay per view, plus LIbertadores/sudamericana tv quotes, plus Copa do Brasil tvquotes, plus State champiomship quotes.

Aproximatelly 80% of money of teams in Brazil is from TV channels.

The most supported teams are Internacional/RS , Corinthians/SP, Fluminense/RJ, São paulo/SP and Cruzeiro/MG, they have good number of fans, good or moderate tv quotes and good sponsors.

River and Boca are one step above top brazilian teams.