MLS is among the top 15 leagues (in average revenue)

I always knew that the Mexican League was rich but i never taught it would be up that high, and right now its growing very rapidly. In this past couple of years there's been like 5 new stadiums starting to get built. I also just heard Cruz Azul will get a new stadium as well.

They're not just plain and simple stadiums, Cruz Azul's stadium will have a camacity of 40K it will have undergroung parking. Santos' stadium will be 28K it's supposed to have a hotel. Indios a recently promoted team will get a 40K stadium with a retractable roof, and Chivas stadium will have a capacity of 50K and its supposed to have a mall, a park and many other things.

 

To piggyback on this discussion with a somewhat related question, how many MLS teams are currently profitable? Just curious.

 

Really? Where you find this?

 

The danish Superliga figures :



http://www.idan.dk/Nyheder/571fodboldregnskaber.aspx

The total Superliga turnover in 2007 was DKK 1,899 million in a 12 team league

US$ 1 = around DKK 4.75

so DKK 1,899 million is just around US$ 400 million divided between 12 clubs = just around US$ 33.3 million a team ... However, since the FC Copenhagen (FCK) and Brøndby (BIF) turnovers are more than half this figure, they have removed the two biggest clubs FCK and BIF to find an average figure for the more average Superliga team, which then is more than DKK 700 million ( probably just around US$ 148 million) divided between the 10 remaining teams (= around US$ 14.8 million a club) ... The red lines at the bottom is the Superliga profits...
.

 

The Brazilian and often Argentine numbers are heavily skewed by players' sales.

Get one Pato (or even Jo, as Corinthians must have gotten a decent sell-on rights) and your revenues climb quite a bit.

Ditto for some Dutch clubs - Heerenveen's budget was €25M (~ $40M) but they will have sold in excess of $50M worth of players in 2008 alone (Afonso, Suleimani, Zuiverloon + probably Bradley and perhaps Pranjic to still go) and their budgets will reflect that. The Frisians have already splurged $5.5M on Tarik E. from Fredrikstad.

 

@ sidefootsitter

Well, in some leagues players sales is almost a natural part of the budget, because the clubs sell players every season... You could say this about some of the clubs in the Danish league...

I btw forgot to write that the Danish figures from Idan (The Athletics' research Institute ) that I posted above, was only trying to look at the total Superliga turnover and so they did not quite go into details about the clubs, except for FC Copenhagen and then OB Odense (finished 4th in the league the past two seasons in a row) who did especially well financially last year... According to Idan the OB Odense turnover reached US$ 43 million (DKK 205 million) in 2007 (not making any big players' sales )
.

 

Some very interesting stuff here.

I was most surprised not by where MLS falls in the rankings but by how little revenue the big European leagues generate.

The Premiereship has total revenue of only 1.3 billion pounds? That's only about $2.6 billion or almost exactly the same as the NHL. It's far less than the NBA ($3.5 billion), MLB ($5.5 billion), or NFL ($6.5 billion). I didn't realize how much richer the large North American leagues are compared to their European counterparts.

 

You could but Heerenveen isn't going to generate $60M in players' sales every season.

The same goes for the Argentine or Brazilian clubs - they don't run into Pato, Kun Aguero and Gonzalo Higuain ever season, at least on a per club basis.

I believe it's up to $3B now but that's basically correct.

The US and EU markets are roughly equal in terms of the total GDP but the US has a much greater standards of living on average and thus much more disposable income, which is where the sports&entertainment revenues come from.

Furthermore, the EU market is divided into a bunch of uneven leagues- from the big'uns (Prem, La Liga, B-liga, etc.) to the little'uns (Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Greece), which obviously splits the revenues among them.

Arguably, the foreign sales are bigger for the big soccer leagues but the US sports are beginning to make inroads there as well (NFL in London, NBA everywhere, etc.)

 

This is true; however, the Premiereship is the richest soccer league on the planet. The NHL is the richest hockey league on the planet but hockey is played seriously in only a fraction of the countries that soccer is. For the two to be equal is surprising to me.

Plus, although the North American market is big it is also split among a number of competing, high level sports. While some European nations have more than just soccer at the pro level, in general the soccer leagues are far ahead of the other leagues.

 

Look at the Box Office number for the motion pix releases - the US BO is ~ $9B.

The top West European nations will be lucky to pass $1.5B each.

 

Average revenue for the nowegain teams are 17.7 million dollars in 2008

 

Do you have clubs in towns the size of Wigan, Blackburn and Middlesbrough in US top-level sports?

Even Green Bay pulls in fans from all across Wisconsin. If they didn't, they'd be under huge pressure to move, community-owned or not.

We're obviously going to be at a disadvantage in comparisons such as these whilst clubs like the aforementioned three are dragging down our average.

 

How odd. The US, with six-times the population, makes six-times the money.

 

Which is here:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=725189