How come it isnt the richest? http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/10/nfl-team-valuations-biz-sports-nfl08_cz_kb_mo_0910nfl_land.html I always thought that it would generate the most money but as it states in the article 19 teams in the NFL are valued at 1 billion dollars and above and only four soccer teams are, whats going on here?
Thats becasue most american games are turnin into a circus. Everything is sponsored..i remeber wathing an NBA game and when the guy hit a three....Three points sponsored by macdonalds... that is just shit...and The NFL is heavily overcomerrcialized..Dont get me wron though i Like the NBA.
I am making a guess. The market for American football fans might be much smaller than soccer, but the NFL basically monopolizes the market. There are only 32 NFL teams to share the entire market. The market for soccer is much bigger, but how many soccer teams are there in the world? Take the 4 teams mentioned: Manchester United, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Liverpool. They all have to share their own turf with more than one club. Manchester United got Manchestor City. Wigan and Bolton Wanderers are nearby. Then, they still have Bury FC, Oldham, Stockport, etc. For Arsenal, the stuation is even worst. They got Chelsea, Fulham, Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United. I don't need to go into Crystal Palace, etc. The same applied to Real Madrid, Liverpool, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Sao Paulo FC, etc. And when the clubs or leagues expands overseas, they still need to complete with the existing domestic league. There are too many established leagues around the world. Let's say Manchester United or Real Madrid might be bigger, but many people can choose to ignore them and follow their own domestic league. For American Football fans, there is no other real alternative.
im almost positive they are looking only at the 25 richest teams. per team on average, football is much richer than soccer. gross, soccer has way more money. but theres probably a thousand pro leagues including second third divisions etc..pro indoor..
If there were only 32 professional soccer teams in the world then they would completely trounce the NFL in value.
Soccer is the richest. Add up the total revenue that gridiron brings in, then compare it to the total revenue football brings in. The NFL only has more mega-rich teams because there are only 32 pro teams in the entire world.
i agree those sports are ridiculously sponsored, but i hate how football teams sell out and put the companies on the front of their jerseys. it shouldnt say AIG, it should say Manchester United, at least in the nba they've kept the companies from doing that.
If you take shirt sponsorship away (which the vast, vast majority of football clubs have) then the sponsorship would simply appear elsewhere in another form. I'd far rather have a sponsor on a shirt then drift towards the US trend of sponsorship for everything else. While you mentioned Manchester United you should note that shirt sponsorship was common place in Europe long before it was in Britian and the first British club to go down that route was Liverpool in 1978.
Whilst I'd agree with you on sponsorship of shirts being preferable to some of the other schemes clubs would use (Oxford United's use of sponsors for the substitutions and injury time most notable here), Liverpool weren't the first in this country. Kettering Town beat them by a couple of years, but did have a few problems with the authorities for that one.
Countless sponsorships , Jerseys sell ALOT for the fashion sake of the Americans , Mugs , NFL jackets , etc The market is endless.
Reading had trouble in 83/84 when sponsored by local radio station Radio 210, as they were banned from having any numbers on the shirt other than the players' numbers. Given that we also chose that season, just 12 months after the Falklands conflict, to adopt a kit based on the strip of Argentina, we were probably asking for trouble. Forbes also include the cost of the team's stadium in their valuations, which is slightly daft. Ignoring the little detail that the teams often don't even own the stadium, not only would you not be able to sell a $600 million dollar stadium to anyone, if someone did buy the franchise with a view to moving it to another city, it's not exactly something you could take with you.
Discounting a primary factor in why a regional nobody like the Tennessee Titans can be mentioned in the same sentence as Arsenal or Manchester United would be pretty daft, too. Owning the stadium is pretty crucial. Controlling concession rights, parking prices, and perhaps most importantly corporate luxury suites is almost as important as television and merchandising for a lot of NFL teams. It's a tougher sell to build a stadium in England, since there aren't many (if any) realistic places for the club to relocate to, but trust me, if those stadiums didn't make money for someone, they wouldn't be built. I'd expect a worldwide trend of big clubs owning their own stadiums, for the same reason that shirt sponsorship spread like kudzu - it's too big a financial advantage to leave to a rival. Emirates Stadium is the future, I'm afraid.
The Europeans started to learn about it 15 years. Today, clubs such as Manchester United sell as much products as most North American teams. It is funny that the Americans got sponsorship on almost everything, but the jersey remains "holy". Of all North American sports, I believed MLS is the only league with sponsorship on their jersey. Even, 10 years ago, we don't even see the Nike or adidas logo. Furthermore, they almost never change their jersey design. Teams such as Boston Celtics use the same design for 30 or more years. I think the same design will last another 30 or 40 years more.
I wouldnt mind if the ad appeared elsewhere like on the sleeve or on the back or in a corner somewhere but to have it front, center, in big letters is too much. And i dont mean to single out man utd in particular, but all teams that do (man utd's AIG jersey is just so recognizable).
I'd rather have a name on the front, than shit like the Sierra Mist goal of the month, or the New York Red Bulls.
Sponsorship is so insignificant. Who cares if its the Sierra Mist Goal of the Week, Red Bull New York, Barclays Premier League or Carling Cup. None of those things affect what goes on in the pitch, which is what really matters. That is why 'being to corperate' is not an argument against American Sports. They affect the bank balance and that's it. The line in the sand is when sponsorship changes the sport. The constant breaks in American Football or the TV timeout in Basketball are disgraceful in my opinion. Everything else, naming events and adverts on shirts, is fine by me.
There are 32 NFL teams in the United States--32 teams for the most popular sport in the fourth-largest and richest country in the world. There are something like 20+ soccer teams in London alone. There are around 43 million people in England, and over 100 professional teams.
Wrong. The NFL is the richest league in the world because it is 1) the best run, and 2) the fairest league. The NFL is a bascially a closed socialist cartel that produces a sports product. The teams act together with devastating effectiveness that creates endless revenue. Instead of the usual survival of the richest that you see in the EPL, Liga, and Serie A, the NFL revenue-sharing arrangements ensure that every team has a great shot. The Big 4 of the EPL, three of Serie A, and two of Liga is unheard of. Instead of the big city teams trampling all over the smaller ones financially, parity is the word through revenue sharing and the draft. US baseball has all the similar "commercialized" stuff that the NFL has, but its revenue system doesn't support smaller market teams the same way. As a consequence, Baseball is losing market share and importance.
^^^Great point! The whole trading system, salary cap, etc. is a reason why they gross so much, because it spreads the wealth as a team like the dolphins for example were trash last season, but with a little help and luck they are kicking butt this season! It keeps the fans always in it, and success can go to anyone because the champions are crowned through playoffs, not points in a single table. I think the system doesnt really fit with soccer, but it works for football and for making money....
the most important soccer championships are play-offs too, the continental leagues, club world cup and the world cup. the world cup have much more revenue than a superbowl. a world cup actually have influence in the economy of some countries lalmost all europe and south america and in the whole world. NFL don't have real national teams competitions and have much less teams. someone can compare the UCL structure with NFL? the revenue of all the teams that can compete in the UCL and the teams who compete in NFL?
Plus, English teams don't have: a) Guaranteed revenue. They can fail to qualify for the Champions League, be relegated, or finish lower in the table so miss out on prize money. b) Salary cap. The NFL guarantees its owners vast profits as they can't be pressured into spending to succeed. c) Exclusive catchment areas. Most NFL teams have entire massive cities, or sometimes entire states, to themselves. Meanwhile, London has five Premiership teams, Greater Manchester four. d) Government-funded stadiums. I bet Arsenal wish they could have pressured Islington council into selling them loads of cheap land, then taxing wine bars in order to help fund the Emirates. e) Revenue sharing. Wigan would be worth more if they got a cut of the Old Trafford gate receipts.