Brand Finance Football Brands 2012

This doesn't make much sense for the canadian teams. Why does it list them in the Canadian Championship? TFC seems like it should be valued much, much higher. Low to mid 30's IMO

 

Let us all welcome the Rochester Rhinos (#165) and Orlando City SC (#144) into MLS!

And Don Garber must have forgotten to announce the recent formation of the South Korean MLS division at last week's ASG.

 

Out of couriosity I added up the values for MLS and got 367 right behind the Russian league, good For #9 in Europe. What does this mean .. IDK.

 

I skimmed through the report, and some of the rankings just seem totally out of place. This is meant to be brands from a global perspective right? Its almost as if they went to a lot of trouble to make sure they included at least one major club from every league, but then valued that clubs brand in line with its league branding. I'm not sure thats the right way of approaching it, but its a difficult task and they've done a decent job.

Some that jumped out: Adelaide United a bigger brand that Panathinaikos, or even Esteghal? FC Twente a bigger brand than Boca Juniors? FC Basel in 27th, ahead of at least 20 clubs listed below it? FC Basel is an example of what I was talking about. Its league is listed in 10th place, and with FC Basel being its biggest brand, it got a spot a lot higher than it probably deserves considering how big some brands below it are in their region.

MLS rankings seem fair.

 

Whoa, ahead of Ukraine, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal (why is Portugal so low?)...

LOL Orlando City made the list and Chivas USA didnt.

 

County of 10m. It'll do that to you.

 

I find it shocking that there are three MLS teams valued at more than Chivas (Guadalajara, not the LA team).

 

As I said in my original post I have no idea what these numbers mean but Chivas Mexico stuck out to me too, even in rave green Seattle, there are Chivas Mexico shirts around, I'm pretty sure there aren't many Sounder shirts in Guadalajara.

Yeah I know they aren't Chivas Mexico but I just find it hilarious to call them that.

 

I would guess not, actually. When it comes to 'global' brand value, almost all of it, for most teams, comes from the local area. It's only a relative few at the top (or, in a case like Chivas, that have large expat communities to cater to) that derive non-negligible value from abroad.

For instance:

I'm not saying this is right, but it's possible, because the Greek economy is in total shambles while the Australian economy has weathered the Great Recession better than almost any other rich country. More people in Spain know who Panathinaikos is, but is Panathinaikos actually deriving any money from that? Probably not.

Again it sounds like local economies are influencing all of those.

 

Agreed.

Here's the methodology again from the report:

So while heritage and historical on field performance matters, attendance, revenue scale and global reach do to. Obviously, it's an art more than a science, but I like it because it gives a more accurate value to emerging teams IMO.

 

Adelaide United average around 9,000; derive a couple of million a year from TV rights; with modest turnover; have never won a trophy; and are 8 years old. None of which suggests its a bigger brand than Panathinaikos.

I'm not seeing how Australia's economy makes any difference here. Yeah, I'm nitpicking, and a lot of the rankings seem reasonable, but it seems like they were trying to be egalitarian for the sake of it.

 

At first glance, it's strange, but if they are truing to measure "the value of the trademark and related intellectual property", what is that value outside of Greece? And how big is the discount factor because of Greece's economic troubles?

My guess is they concluded the brand didn't have great "legs" outside of Greece and the present value was deeply discounted because of the Greek economy. Adelaide United may be too high, but I can see a steep discount being applied to the Greek clubs.