Bugets 2003/04 This are the calculated budgets for the 2003/04 season – some are confessed by the clubs, others are estimated by experts. In case that any kicker readers complain: kicker today definitely published some wrong numbers, especially Dortmund’s and Bayern’s (55/60 – I think both published their real numbers, but as last season’s outcome is known – e.g. Bayern 178 M - it is more than clear that kicker is miles away from the right numbers). I divide into the leagues, in which the clubs are ‘really’ playing in: League 1: Bayern 150 League 2: Dortmund 125 League 3 (although rather league 6 if we consider the differences from above) Hamburg 50 Hertha 49 Wolfsburg 48 Leverkusen 48 League 4: Stuttgart 41 Bremen 40 Schalke 35 Cologne 34 League 5: 1860 28 M’gladbach 27 K’lautern 26 Bochum 26 Hannover 25 Rostock 24.5 Freiburg 24 Frankfurt 24 Actually league 3 to 5 are not the big difference; anyone could live with this being the different budgets in the league. What you clearly see is that Bayern and Dortmund make themselves ridiculous everytime they don’t finish on the first two spots. All numbers are in million Euro btw.
Re: Bugets 2003/04 Ha! Wolfsburg has a bigger budget than Schlacke, Stuttgart and Bremen. The same like HSV and Hertha? Whats that joke? This club is embarassing! Its only VW! I hate them.
Schalke's budget is shockingly small if you consider their ambitions and their rhetoric. Wolfsburg's budget is the real surprise in the group. I wonder what the budgets are like in other leagues--that would be most interesting.
Actually I'm not sure with Schalke. Most numbers are confirmed by various sources, but Schalke's is one of the kicker estimations - and how wrong they are can be seen with Dortmund and Bayern. On the one hand 35 M seems possible as they have quite a burden with the repayment for the stadium, but on the other hand I think they always were in the category of the clubs with about 50 M - but then again, they are not international this time.
What are the profit margins for the teams? I imagine Bayern and Dortmund are raking in the money, but what about the teams under 50?
I think Bayern only just broke even this season because of the early CL exit. Then again, Bayern only budgets with guaranteed income (first round CL), ...unlike some team whose budget includes winning the CL.
Aim usually is to finish the season +/- 0. It differs from club to club how risky they calculate. Bayern is always very cautious, this year e.g. Stuttgart does not include a successful Champions League in the budget, while I think Wolfsburg plans with reaching the UEFA Cup via the UI Cup (that's also why they start preparing for the next season already next week!!!). This season Schalke, Gladbach and Bielefeld made significant plus (more than 1M), while Hamburg and Leverkusen had huge losses (15/10 M).
I've always wondered why Hertha weren't a bigger side. You would figure as the sole 1st division representative in a media market that size they would be a financial powerhouse. Any explanations?
Hertha came out of nothing, 5 or 6 years ago. They are a constant Uefa-Cup or even CL starter. I think they are big, although I hate them.
I basically agree with what Germanshepherd said--Hertha has come pretty far in a short period of time. Prior to reunification, West Berlin was a soccer outpost, at best. No team had any real ambition or was particularly well run. Moreover, my sense is that players generally did not want to play in West Berlin. The list of 1.BL teams prior to reunification is hardly stellar--Tasmania Berlin, Tennis Borussia Berlin, Blau Weiss Berlin (all of whom had terrible financial problems and dropped down into low divisions), plus Hertha (who, prior to reunification, were bouncing between 3rd and 2d Div.). But reunification, as you note, created a fertile ground for professional soccer, and Hertha seized the opportunity (being the "best" of a pretty sorry assortment of teams).
@ Wolfsburgh That is not quite true what you write about Hertha. In the seventies they did quite well. http://www.fussballdaten.de/vereine/herthabscberlin/ If you scroll down, you can see what I mean. And I don´t think that players didn´t want to play in West-Berlin. Why shouldn´t they? Did Düsseldorf disappear, because people don´t want to live there? Don´t think so. domingo
Domingo: I only said that Hertha, prior to the mid-90s, was never a "stellar" team and, in fact, were more often than not "pretty sorry." Your link proves the point--they had 4 or 5 decent seasons in the mid-70s, and that's it. Other than that, they were, in fact, less than stellar. As for players not wanting to play in Berlin, it's some conjecture on my part, but consider the following: (1) there was no successful or financially well-run team in West Berlin from 1963 to the mid-1990s; (2) there was little tradition of success--Hertha was admitted into the BL for the inaugural season only because the DFB felt they needed a team in Berlin; (3) W. Berlin was remote, making for long road trips and separation from family and friends; (4) W. Berlin was isolated, which created a sense of detachment; (5) W. Berlin was expensive; (6) W. Berlin was on the frontlines of the Cold War. Hardly an ideal environment for a rising young soccer star.
What makes up most of these teams money? Hey all- I've got a question for you. I know that Bayern is the richest club in Germany but why? In Germany do they have their own TV contact. I mean other stadiums in Germany are as big so it can't be just tickets? Please explain the huge gap to a newbie who sees this all over soccer but I cannot understand why? I think back to college football in the US and there are a whole range of stadiums and quality of teams (perrenial winners, doormats, large stadiums, small stadiums) but the disparity doesn't seem to be as large. Additionally, I was in Freiburg when they clinched their promotion on vacation and now I am Freiburg supporter as I loved the atmosphere after the game and loved the city itself. Can anyone tell me about their prospects of staying up?
Officially, I believe that the BL teams, including FCB, share TV money for league games equally . . . but, there was a big controversy this past season because FCB had cut a secret deal with Kirch (which I think was worth 20 million euros). It ended up being quite the soap opera. Bayern's cash advantage probably comes from a combo of the following: ticket sales (usually among the league leaders); merchandising (#1); advertising (likely #1); sponsorships (likely the most lucrative); Champions League (usu. #1); tours and friendlies (probably the most sought after team in Germany for these); and the League Cup and DFB Pokal. When you are #1 or close to in all these revenue categories, it makes sense that you'll have more money that your competitors. I think Freiburg will stay up and be reasonably competitive before being relegated 3-4 years from now.
Re: What makes up most of these teams money? The first reason of course is that Bayern has a good management. But actually until about ten years ago the league was pretty equal - Bayern a top team, but nobody who could not be defeated. Eras came and went, but ten years ago Dortmund and Bayern were in the right place at the right time. They were successful on international level in times of booming TV markets. The national statutes were not prepared for those financial dimensions and it was too late to stop the fatal development as Bayern and Dortmund naturally blocked everything that could have endangered their position. Additionally the national TV money as big income source is not divided equally but according to the positions of the last three seasons - another aspect benefiting the top teams. This all led to the Bayern and Dortmund dominance, which reflects in 6 Bayern and 3 Dortmund titles within the last ten years.
Hertha didn't seize upon the opportunity nearly as much as Bayern and the Gods of the DFB seized upon the opportunity to dump a lot of money into the club. They were the highest rated team at the time of reunification, which was enough to qualify them for a large amount of charity from those who thought the Capitol had to have a 1st division team.
About WC'06 Do you think with the World Cup in 06 being in Germany that with all of the stadium expansions that will increase attendance that will make certain clubs stronger and maybe bring about 5-6 top teams in Germany instead of 2? Additionally, are there any teams who are in the lower level of 1.Bundesliga or 2.Bundesliga teams that may be getting a new stadium which will allow them to really expand their club.
Re: About WC'06 That's difficult to predict. The sinking TV money will surely close the gap a little, but it won't be easy to really get close. The attendance income still is much less than TV and rallying up to the top two requires that they fail to qualify for the international competitions several years and other teams being constantly successful in this competition. Actually the bad Olympic stadium was a handicap for Bayern, but the new Allianz Arena will improve their position regarding this aspect a lot.
Re: About WC'06 Three 1.BL teams have opened new stadiums in the last two years--Schalke, Hansa, and Wolfsburg. Based on the evidence (jury's still out on Wolfsburg), a new stadium does not propel a team to new heights. Schalke was a team just outside of the elite when the stadium opened and arguably, they've regressed. Hansa's ambition remains to avoid relegation. And Wolfsburg was a mid-table team before its new stadium and a mid-table team after its new stadium. So it does not appear that the sometimes positive US experience with new stadiums has jumped the pond, see, e.g., Baltimore Orioles/Camden Yards; Cleveland Indians/Jacobs Field; Arizona Diamondbacks/BOB; Seattle Mariners/Safeco; Houston Astros/Minutemaid; but see Detroit Tigers/Comerica; Pittsburgh Pirates/PNC.