These are false arguments. For one, it is implicit that if the league can afford to compete with top Euro salaries, then the league will have reached a certain level of fan interest to make that financially feasible. That level of fan interest will take some time to build (30 years?), but at that point, it implies that the league will have reached a competitive level that supercedes that of the secondary and tertiary Euro leagues (e.g Russia). If that is the case, the shop window will have shifted westward. Scouts will turn on a dime if they can find a new source of talent. Geography will not be an obstacle as is already the case re: Brazil/Argentina. Furthermore, my original comment was in response to the notion that top 100 level players would not be interested in playing in MLS. That is false. I wasn't arguing that a majority or even plurality of these players would play in MLS vs. other leagues. Honestly, who would really care about playing in the group stage of the Champs League or, certainly, UEFA Cup with a scrub team that will get bounced out in the first round. I think a number of players would choose to live their lives in a more hospitable environment than Moscow. Lastly, I did not say or imply that every European city is a hellhole vs. American cities. You came up with some hyperbolic interpretation. My comment was, again, in response to the idea that MLS would not be able to attract any top 100 level players unless they were American. That's a bold statement that doesn't hold much water IMO because for some (not all or even most) if the competitive level and financial appeal of MLS were on par with Europe, they would choose MLS. The only advantage Europe would have is tradition, which is certainly very significant but not such that NO top 100 level players would prefer MLS to Europe. For the record, I would also prefer to live in a number of European cities compared with a number of American cities.
Initially, your assumptions are reasonable. However, that is merely at the beginning of MLS becoming a "major" league. That initiation will continue to lead to better overall quality over time that closes the gap with Europe. Again, as someone else pointed out, the question isn't whether MLS will be one of the top leagues in the next 10 years or even 20-30 years. I think most have read it as "can MLS ever be one of the top leagues?" There is an implicit assumption I think that many Americans are making that our friends across the pond may not realize because it's obvious to us. If MLS has payrolls equivalent to even just NHL teams, the whole dynamic of US player production will change dramatically. Only recently have kids even grown up with the idea that they could become a professional. If the money is there at that level, the kids, the parents, the scouting, the academies, etc. will follow. Given our athletic resources, the US will produce plenty of its own stars at that point to feed MLS. It's a virtuous cycle with clear secular underpinnings such as demographic shifts in the US and increasing globalization.
Part of your answer was early in the thread: Rosenborg B.K. drew 19,481 on average to its 13 league games last year, SK Brann 16,691 and FC Copenhagen 23,858. If those figures are correct, and I think they are, you don't need huge attendance to support a $25 million payroll. Nor a $50 million payroll for that matter. The link Hansadyret provided for the Russian teams indicated that "Zenit Saint Petersburg has a budget of around USD 70 million for the year, Lokomotiv Moscow USD 60 million and Spartak Moscow USD 50 million." They drew, on average, 21,954, 13,066, and 17,215 to their 15 home league games in 2006. This isn't impossible for MLS. Link if you wish to verify the attendance numbers: http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
Those clubs make a lot of money from things other than league attendance. You have Champions League/UEFA CUp, player transfers, TV contracts amongst other things. They have some pretty decent revenue sources. Not to mention that the clubs in these countries are respected and loved by the people. There is brand awareness which will only increase sponsorship investment. As the Eastern European economies grow, so will those football leagues. Countries like Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Romania have large enough populations to support top level leagues. And they already have the player development aspect figured out. Another thing they have going for them is access to media. No sports journalist in these places is going to hamper the growth of football like they often try to do here in the US. There certainly isn't such a thing as an anti-football establishment to deter progress. What I'm saying is that these emerging countries have fewer obstacles than MLS, so if I'd have to guess who has the best shot to succeed I'd pick them. And don't forget China and Japan. Those countries are also going to evolve their football over the next several decades. I have a feeling that they will also be interested in being big players in the global football market.
There are several important factors in the continuing emergence of the Russian Premier League. 1) Many teams are owned by very wealthy individuals - or, in case, of Zenit, Gazprom - who can bear major losses. 2) Russia has a very low tax rate of 13%, so often players are working on "net" deals. 3) The cost of living in Russia is about 50% of the US (i.e., the dollar has double the purchasing power there than in an average US town). Let' see how these three factors combine : Anatoly Timoschück, who was recently rumored to be a target for several big Euro clubs, is the highest paid player in Russian soccer with ~ $4M salary. Assuming, that's a "gross" deal, his net/take home is ~ $3.5M. But that $3.5M can buy him $7M worth of goods and services visavis the US. Of course, to have a $7M take-home wage in the US, he'd need to make $12-13M gross. In the UK, he'd need to make $15-17M/Y to get the equivalent value. And, considering that the top stars in the Premiership make $12-13M and Timoschück is not near that level, Zenit is paying him 4-6 more than he'd be making in England. As a Ukrainian, he obviously has no problem with the language or the lifestyle either. Many South Americans and certainly Europeans do. But the money can be too good to pass up.
Most top Russian clubs fill their rosters with Eastern Bloc players. Those players have no trouble living in Russia. Russia can be pretty accomodating for its richer citizens, in fact even more than the West. A guy can have anything his heart desires in Moscow without many of the consequences that would follow in the West. Guys like Garry O'Connor from the West have a tougher time adjusting and that's why he wanted to leave just one year into his lucrative contract at Lokomotiv. The South Americans and Africans in the league are a different story. The teams that do hire those players usually hire them in bunches to minimize homesickness. It's working OK at CSKA, most of those Brazilians seem happy. The biggest obstacle to their happiness though is some of the worst stadium racism in all of Europe.
You have some really weird, and untrue, notions about cities and life in the USA. We might as well turn the question around and ask you what you actually know about Chicago that didn't come from rather biased and hyperbolic British media sources.
So, New Jersey it is, then! Seriously, if your notions of life in New Jersey come from watching The Sopranos, you don't have a clue.
you've said it,the real key is money. Can you buy a top soccer league? The answer is yes and you don't need 10-15 years to do that...American fans love stars and being the best, you buy the best international players and get them into MLS and you'll reach those 50 million soccer fans here in North America. Just look at what Beckham has doe already with out playing one game in MLS, could we even think of what a Ronaldinho can do for MLS? Money is truly the answer in making MLS into one of the big leagues of the future!
First of all, the UEFA Cup doesn't make much money for the clubs involved unless they go really far in it. Second, as I understand it, teams in the CL are compensated based on how much money their home nation generates. So, a German or English team that gets to a certain level gets much more money than a Portuguese or Danish team would. Of course, home attendance receipts are club dependent.
Of course, he has to pay for bodyguards for himself and his whole family to safeguard them from ransom kidnappings. And then there's mental stress of even having to worry about such a thing.
Well, Doha is getting its own "palm" The real estate developments in the region are astounding and no longer limited to Dubai.
True, and for teams like Rosenborg that have performed well in the Champions League, that money has been vitally important. For most clubs that don't advance beyond the group stage, however, the payout is obviously more limited. Still, MLS owners won't have access to that revenue, but they do get money from SUM, and they at least have the potential of getting some money in Superliga -- if it takes off. And they can sell merchandise. But back to the main contention -- can MLS teams some day support $25 or even $50 million payrolls? Clearly, in smaller wesern Eurpoe and emerging eastern Europe it is happening now, and while I wouldn't call it easy, it isn't that hard to see happening in the not too distant future. The Galaxy has a $9 million plus payroll now, which they have achieved despite a very restrictive salary cap. If no cap was in place, I suspect they would be in the $12 to $15 million range now, as their revenues would support it. And while spending money on players alone won't guarantee that you have a top performing club or leauge, you can guarantee that you won't have any chance to have one if you don't spend it.
Is this some kind of competition between all the professional leagues in the USA and soccer in Europe? by the way you forgot the MLS when you calculated the total for the US leagues and money in sport. I have no doubt the MLS can be a big league in the future if it continues to grow but most of the money are allready tied up in other sports wich makes it very difficult. I tried to find some numbers of the other european leagues to see if the $15 billion mentioned in this articlehttp://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20070131/financial-investors-european-football-clubs.htm has some truth in it but it is very difficult to find the information in english. I realy dont think the serie B should be at number 11 in your list(maybe with Juve in it). I believe the dutch eredivisie has revenues of about $450M. This is what i know: the 14 teams in the norwegian league has a total revenue of about $200M, i expect the swedish and danish leagues to have around $200M as well. Thats $600M in scandinavia. I expect leagues from bigger countries then Norway to have much higher revenues. These are my estimates: Scandinavia: $600M Holland: $450M Scotland: $400M Russia: $400M Austria+Switzerland: $400M Portugal: $300M Greece: $300M Turkey:$300M Belgium:$300M I dont think im much off with these estimates. If someone has more correct numbers please correct me. The $9.335billion+These leagues gives a total of $12.785billion. And then you have the national team revenues from qualifying and competitions. I found this information on the English FA on wikipedia: "The FA's turnover for the year ending 31 December 2004 was £206.1 million, of which £176.9 million came from television rights and sponsorship. Its other sources of income include gate receipts from English internationals, payments from FIFA and UEFA relating to England's participation in international competitions, and sundry minor sources of income. [1] The FA's income does not include the turnover of English football clubs, which are independent businesses." I believe if you take all the national teams into account it probably probably sums up to around $15 billion.
um, not really. my point was not whether the top teams in other areas (mls included) could match the payrolls of european clubs. clearly in these oil kingdoms and in america the money exists to compete with european football if the desire to do so is there. my point is that you could have team A (a european club) and team B (mls club). both clubs could have identical payrolls, say $20million. the point i was making was that both clubs would not be getting an equal quality of players for that $20million. team A would have the better squad because they would pay market value for the players, while team B would have to pay above market value and so would get a poorer quality of player for that money.
The MLS becoming massive is a good and bad thing IMO. Everything the Americans get behind become big. this league in future can surpass MLB, NBA and NFL. BUt with that I see USA dominating soccer and im sick of them dominating every other sport.
What do you think would be better for your career: playing well at the Nou Camp or San Siro. Or... playing well at Qwest Field or Toyota Park?
Don't make the mistake of assuming that other associations are as rich as the English FA, which is pretty much an exception. In the other main European TV markets, Spain and Italy aren't really interested in their national teams, and German TV isn't very lucrative.
I don't assume that the other associations are as rich as the English FA. The english FA got over £200M in 2004. There are 53 associations in UEFA if everyone had the same revenue as the FA the total revenue for the national teams would be over $20billion wich is a bit to much i think. My calculations wich are much based on estimates show that you need a little over $2billion in national team revenues to get to the $15billion. If the FA can get allmost $400M i dont see it impossible that the other 52 associations could have a little over $1.6billion combined.
Ok. MLS will never compete with the big leagues of the world. Because there will be only one big league in the future. The European league. Soon the CHL will stop to grow and the biggest clubs in Europe will feel that there are so much more money to be made if they form a European league. The rest that is left of the Premiership, South american leagues or even if the MLS should be much more popular in the US....still they will not have a chance of competing with the Euro league. I hate the idea of such a league but its going to happen. Money talks.....sad but true.
I have always wondered why german televison isnt very lucrative. Someone please explain. Germany has the strongest economy in Europe. They have the highest soccer crowd attendance in Europe. They have the biggest population in Western Europe. WHY????? And why shouldnt Italian and Spaninsh Televsion be interested in their national team. I thought their media was very interested?
I've wondered about the same thing. Maybe a german could explain it to us. Germany has the largest economy in Europe and their interest in football is enormous, still they have difficulties competing with the big clubs in England,Italy and Spain. I'm not sure about this but i remember there was some problems in Germany with the media mogul Kirk(i believe his name was) who bought the TV-rights for german football some years ago and then went bancrupt. Maybe german tv channels see what happend to Kirk and are affraid of paying to much for the Tv-rights or something.
Germans get like 35 free channels, in other countries it’s closer to 4 or 5 . That’s why they aren’t willing to buy pay-tv packages in large numbers, and that’s where the big money in England is. As far as the national team is concerned I don’t think there is much difference between England and Germany. National team games are shown on free tv in both countries and get huge ratings .
I'm almost positive I read that another contributing factor to German football's attendance was that there is a very conscious effort to keep ticket prices very low so everyone can attend. This is achieved by diverting some revenues that would otherwise go to signing players (on a league-wide basis).