some more contrasting. MLS League Average Team Value 2008 - $35.5M 2012 - $103.1M +$67.5M / 190.1% MLS League Average Team Yearly Revenue 2008 - $12.8M 2012 - $26.0M +13.2M / 103.7% MLS League Average Team Yearly Profit 2008 - -$1.5M 2012 - $2.0M +$3.6M MLS Salary Budget 2008 - $2.3M 2012 - $2.81M +$.51M / 22% so in summary, average valuation up nearly 200%, average revenue up nearly 100%, average profit up wildly as is the percentage of teams at break even or better ... salary cap up 22% in that same time. yep, 2022 here we come!
The Sounders are more valuable than 8 NHL teams. Source LeagueTeamValue ($M) NHLAnaheim Ducks192 NHLBuffalo Sabres175 MLSSeattle Sounders175 NHLTampa Bay Lightning174 NHLFlorida Panthers170 MLSLA Galaxy170 NHLNashville Predators167 NHLCarolina Hurricanes162 NHLNew York Islanders155 NHLColumbus Blue Jackets145 MLSPortland Timbers141 NHLPhoenix Coyotes134 NHLSt Louis Blues130 MLSHouston Dynamo125
there are as many profitable teams in the mls, as there are in the NBA, so fun on a side note those nhl numbers dont look right. St Louis is one of the more profitable teams, i know they play in a small market but i think they are worth more then that.
it isn't sustainable perhaps but that does not mean that the salary cap growth couldn't have more closely mirrored the growth of the league. say 50% increase over that 4 years instead of half that? the stupidly low cap and the subsequent weakness in quality of squads from 1-18 is one of the biggest issues in MLS seems to me they have the financial growth to have done/to do something about that. i am very much looking forward to seeing the MLSPA take the MLS to the woodshed in the next CBA agreements. i'd love to think that the domestic soccer press would pick up on this growth vs the stagnation of the cap vs the hypocrisy of the 2022 bullshit that MLS-HQ sells but i know better than to expect any soccer journos to actually hold MLS's feet to the fire on such a thing.
Not sure why that would surprise you.. MLS revenues are fairly closely tied to attendance/fanbases and the Timbers have one of the largest fanbases in the league.
BIG point here before people jump to the raise the cap argument. Stadium costs plus taxes likely put many teams at even (Houston) or in the red
True, but it appears to go beyond that...seeing as how their attendance numbers (2012) are not the largest, their fanbase is really doing a great job relative to other team's fanbases.
Hence why I included fanbases.. The Timbers fanbase is significantly larger than what can fit into their stadium. They'd rival the Sounders for attendance if they had a comparably sized stadium, IMHO. But the revenue also includes sponsorships and other revenue streams.
I wonder if the revenue estimates include the non-MLS related revenue generated by the MLS teams that own/operate their stadiums..
They must have a bad tv deal. I mean Fox Sports St Louis is the only sports programming there so i wouldnt be surprised but still. *looks at houstons 8.2mil profit.... Any one else notice that the revs had the lowest, Revenue- Operation Income, or i believe money spent on team.. not surprising to be honest. they also made a profit with the 3rd lowest revenue.
I highly doubt it as those are separate companies all together (in most cases). You would ask Forbes to go digging for concert revenue, promoter deals, etc. I would guess they left that alone completely.
So basically Orlando City FC with its 70 mil entry fee is worth more than Chivas and it doesn't even exist. And NYCFC, which also does not exist outside of an office building, is worth more than 11 teams with its 100 mil entrance fee.
Yeah, but it is operating profit. Houston likely HAS to operate lean in order to cover the stadium bill which is not included (those numbers are EBITDA). Depending on the AD schedule of the stadium, Houston is likely looking at 5 million plus of that 8 million going to stadium debt. Then you take the taxes out on the whole thing . . . probably still in the black but not by much.
With single-entity, a specific club "winning or losing" on the field isn't all that important (as some teams have to "lose" the games) -- but the whole (of the league) is "winning" as a business.
This leans towards the argument a higher % of revenue should be spent on player acquisition. No that doesn't mean throwing more money at domestic players foolishly, but rather giving teams more flexibility in buying and going after foreign talent and hopefully doing so wisely, building more balanced rosters. Somewhere between 25-30% would be doable imo.
The Revs benefit from Kraft owning the stadium and putting them under the Kraft/Patriots umbrella. The more surprising is Red Bulls struggle for being the biggest media market. They are either overspending or are run terribly. Toronto FC's revenue is very high despite being so poor for so long, must be a TV deal
Look at their DP spending above the budget. That pretty much explains away the difference between Houston and NY in terms of operating income.
i think 3 players can only improve a team so much, and a league even less. the cap itself, that covers players 3-30 needs a big increase along with a losening of the foreign player caps (for now while the domestic talent pool cannot sustain the growth or quality level the increased cap would hope to achieve, tho they could be re tightened over the next decade or two). the truth is for mls quality of play to considerably improve the teams need more 500kish guys not just one or two in addition to 1-3 dps ... and they need not to just pay the same talent more but rather pay more to get better talent ... push the 200k starters now to subs and find some 500k starters and push the <100k subs/journeyman (often domestics like zach scott of whom there are 3-5 on every team) to D2.
Not likely. Or rather, an ownership group has a whole set of options on how and where to assign the stadium debt and in most cases it would make the most sense to show your team operations at even or at a loss (for a whole set of reasons). It could be everything from direct assignment of the debt to an interest charge back from the other operating company. In any case, the team LLC is likely paying all or a large portion of the debt. Since those numbers are EBITDA, the most likely set of scenarios would have the stadium debt not yet reflected in the numbers.