If these clubs are averaging 15,000 odd attendance, how come there's all this fuss about it not being profitable? okay, so sport is always a risky buiness for investment but as far as I can work out there's nothing like Leeds-style cash haemorraging - the wage budgets are only $1.7m, due to the drafting thingie there's no big cash transfers - ok so building a 24,000 seater costs money, but not counting Leeds, Wrexham, Milton Keynes and I think Cambridge, most English League clubs are in decent financial shape, while many have stadiums that are only around 10,000 in capacity (eg, Northampton) and have similar wage budgets to MLS sides. So why isn't it making money when smaller english sides are generally able to with lower attendances? Less sponsorship money? Less money from merchandise? More money being slipped in the pockets of the League bosses? Where's all the money going?
cause rent is terrible, there is no tv money, we pay to put stuff out there on tv and radio... by being renters, there are pretty much no ancillary revenue streams at the stadiums we don't own the stadiums (for the large part)... so it sucks... that's huge amounts of money compared to what could be brought in it is truely not that simple of a thing
How do you think Anschutz, Hunt, and Kraft got so mega-rich. Off the back of MLS of course. Seriously, parking fees, concessions, etc. Ticket revenue isn't enough to cover the expenses of operating a pro league. These US teams pay rent at huge stadiums, have front offices, etc. Right now there isn't enough money taken in to make Anschutz and Kraft look at it as a revenue source. The guys running the league are probably payed well at the very top. Decent at the mid-level (GM's). Lower than that I wouldn't imagine anyone is being overpayed. The overhead on a pro league is more than I think you estimate.
IIRC, Metrostars pay $250,000 a game to rent Giants Stadium. That times 15 (now 16) home matches will put a serious dent in any league's bottom line.
PAYING for TV and radio time? I mean, I understand that you aren't getting the kind of deals the premiership is, but I'd have thought you'd have got it for free, rather than having to pay! The four million for renting a stadium is pretty steep, true. I guess all the small things do build up, but the thing I can't work out is why isn't there much sponsorship? OK, so they wouldn't make big cash off it but in that case you'd expect them to plaster everything with ads to make as much as they could, but they don't even have anything on the front of the kit?
Good question. The bottmomline is unlike in England these teams don't release their financial details. So when they say they are losing money we have to take their word for it. Someone believe wholeheartedly what they say others are more sceptical.
1. Well first off they don't pay for TV. The peoplew ho own the league also own an entity call Soccer United Marketing that has the english language rights to the world cup in this country(they paid about $40 million for it while the people who own the spansih language rights paid whole lot more - this kind of insider deal is whole other story that I won't go into right now). In exchange for the rights to broadcast the world cup ABC/ESPN pays SUM lots aof money as well as gives the league free time on te air to broadcast league games. So they don not pay for air time they get it for free and they get to keep all advertising revenue from these broadcast games. 2. The four million rent for a stadium is only paid by one team, mine. Most other teams have deals where they realise very little money from stadium operations but none of them pay that much for rent or anything even close to it. Soem teams even pay $1 a year in rent and play in an NFL football stadium that is operated by the owner of the soccer team. The league just signed a sponsorship agreement with Addidas for tens years and $150 million. 3. There is a lot of sponsorship most teams have shirt sponsors (on the back of the kit) that tend to be fortune 500 companies hwoever we don't know how large or small these deals are. 4. MLS has structure that really discourages teams to go out and find new sources of revenue. All revenue that the league generates is shared alomst equally among the teams. Teamms are not encouraged to develop young players since all players coming into the league are distributed via a draft system wherein ano team has rights to any player. The bottom line is we don't know how much money the league makes since there is absolutely no current publically availabel information that would tell us so. Also the way the league is strutured makes it easy to claim losses since some of the more lucrative avenues of revenue are owned by outside ventures but run by people who run the league. For example the new stadium in Los Angeles is owned by an ouitside company that is in turn owned by the company that owns the LA Galaxy. So whatever revenue that arises from stadium operations (there are some non soccer events held at the stadium) doesn't show up on the LA Galaxy balance sheet (unless the owners wnat it to). In essence without the Galaxy their would be no stadium but the benefits of the stadium are not immediately apparent. The galaxy in turn is able to claim only modest profits and an enterprise in reality genertaes goo amount of cash is in an accounting sense a break even proposition. We simply do not know what the financial shape the league is in and we can only go by what they claim. Anyone who says differently is a person pushing an agenda since we are all equally in the dark. BTW here is agood thread to read on the issue. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=159593
Many of us are trying to figure out how European leagues, including the Colaship, can pay players so much. The better question to ask someone from Leicester is: where does all the cash come from?
Rommul, if MLS is so profitable (or at least has severely shady bookkeeping) as you are suggesting, then investors should be knocking down the doors to buy in. Since investors are only entering the league slowly, I respectfully suggest that your insinuations are incorrect.
Show me where i said MLS is profitable? Did I not state ON TWO OCCASIONS that we don't know. How about not putting words in my mouth? How about not lying and accusing me of saying things I didn't say? Act this what i mean when I say people who say they know differently are pushing an agenda. Any person who even questions the idea that MLS is a huge money loser will be met with agreesive accusations. It is almost not permissable to ask these questions even if the only conclusion you reach is that "We don't know". That is not good enough in the eyes of many. They want a party line with no room for other opinions. My post to you is clear. We don't know. And neither does this poster.
this is what was said ......... "Rommul, if MLS is so profitable (or at least has severely shady bookkeeping) as you are suggesting ........" I haven't even read what Rommul said to prompt what DoctorD said, but for you to suggest that DoctorD is not saying that Rommul is making an argument of MLS being profitable, is disingenuous on your part.
Dude don't even bother with him. He is a stalker of mine. Occasionally he comes out of the woodwork to start something with me. True to form he has nothing to add to the thread and is only looking for trouble. He is a waste of your keystrokes and mine as well.
Suggestion: 1. The sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another. 2a. A psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion. 2b. An idea or response so induced. 3. A hint or trace: just a suggestion of makeup; the first suggestion of trouble ahead. Insinuations: 1. The act, process, or practice of insinuating. 2. Something insinuated, especially an artfully indirect, often derogatory suggestion. Said: 1. To utter aloud; pronounce: The children said, “Good morning.” 2. To express in words: Say what's on your mind. 3a. To state as one's opinion or judgment; declare: I say let's eat out. 3b. To state as a determination of fact: It's hard to say who is right in this matter. Courtesy of dictionary.com.
Well where does MLS stand finacially? I would GUESS since I do not know for certain that they are still in the Red but may be close to breaking even now. MLS is on year 10!! They will make more as more SSS' are built. So how many people posting here own MLS gear?
My lord, every time I see this number mentioned it gets bigger. It is true that the Metros are screwed by their Giants Stadium lease; screwed in many ways - they have limited access to the stadium in the summer months (I think one Saturday per month; attendence is much higher on Saturdays); get next to nothing (perhaps even nothing, I don't really know) from match-day revenue (parking, concessions, etc.); they pay through the nose to use the stadium (how much? I don't know - a lot; a few years ago, the club's GM stated they paid $1.5 million/season to use the stadium; I'm sure it's higher today - $100,000/game? $200,000/game? Like I said, a lot); AND because they share the place with the NFL, the pitch looks horrible (gridlines) starting in the fall. Which makes the club the biggest sole money loser in MLS (several million $ per year, or so I've read). So the cash, such as it is, has many places to go. Understand this, and you understand why MLS teams owning/controlling their own stadia is so vital.
That's the national broadcasts. The teams still lay out cash to get on the air in their local markets. Perhaps not everyone's deal is the same, or as onerous, but it's not a trivial expense for the teams and, by extension, the LLC.
thanks... i was about to post the same and try putting something on the air in chicago or ny and make it cheap only the galaxy has a deal where they get paid for their local tv rights... and that is because they got the tv rights for the chivas and combined the two together to package locally and it worked sum produces everything done on espn2 and abc... the time slots are free because of the world cup deal... and mls gets the commercial money... which would tell me mls loses money on it (ads - production cost) no real idea how the deal with fsw or hdnet works... those are probably closer to free/no loss deals
I have a DC training jersey, an old DC jersey and last years DC shorts, and I had a pair of first year crew shorts but gave them to my crew supporting roomate. and I probably will get the DC jersey.
Also, remember the ownership of MLS have other businesses, many of which I must guess are profitable. If they are profitable, they are causing tax revenues to be owed to the fed. If MLS, as a pass-through entity (LLC), is losing money, I suspect such losses are being used to offset profits and thereby reduce the amount of tax owed to the fed. So, maybe MLS is currently losing money on an annual basis. Maybe not. In my opinion, the real value of MLS is not in becoming profitable on an annual basis. Rather, look into the future at an MLS consisting of 20 healthy teams, each with it's own facility, each (hopefully) profitable. What do you think each individual team franchise or the whole MLS league entity will be worth? http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html http://www.forbes.com/2005/01/27/cz_kb_0127valuations_print.html e.g. George Halas paid $100.00 for the Chicago Bears in 1920. The franchise is now worth, according to the above-linked Forbes article, $785,000,000.00. This could be defined as a 'good' long-term investment.