The KC feasibility study pegged an average MLS team's annual budget at $8 Million. Since the average MLS team still loses money, you have a revenue estimate. I would imagine that previous to this season (Beckham effect + new contracts), the range was something like $5 Million to $9 Million. I was once fond of saying that if MLS teams had half the revenue of NHL teams, they could afford the 6-8th best league in the world. This thread makes that statement look, financially at least, just about right. (You have the issue of forcing American players on the field, scouting niches, etc.)
Yeah, I'd predicted that the spread of SSSes around the league should have raised salaries between a third and a half without any 'Beckham effect.'
This attitude, while it's not going to get them the greatest amount of revenue short-term, is a sound long-term strategy. Subscription-only services increase revenue short term, but restrict the number of new fans that are exposed to your product. However, they're not as bad a pay-per view, which is even more restrictive. For a cautionary tale, look no further than Boxing. 30 years ago, it was among the top sports in the world. 20 years ago, it was huge. now, it's a footnote, primarily due to them removing all major fights from free TV to go after the big pay-per-view dollars. I bet more people could tell you who won "The Contender" last year than could tell you the current middleweight champ. Why? Free TV.
There's parity, and there's ridiculousness. A team with its own stadium and healthy income shouldn't be held back by owners who can't be bothered building a stadium or selling any tickets.
Quite a lot of people have Sky nowadays, and every pub has the games on. Although moving some games to Setanta will reduce the audience a bit. Free TV just doesn't generate enough revenue in a game with few ad-breaks.
Except for the high lights show on free TV Bundesliga games are on pay-per-view channels for years now. The problem is that people in Germany are simply not that interested in pay-per-view TV because of 30+ free TV channels. Despite the fact that it's the only way to watch Bundesliga games live for a decade or so now people who are actually willing to pay for TV are still a very small minority. A few years ago the company who owned the Bundesliga TV rights went bankrupt in the middle of their contract as their pay-per-view channel was deep in the red, forcing the league to sell the rights again for less money.
It's amazing when you look at the breakdown of revenue $$$ per team in the NFL and MLB, given that there are many more teams in those leagues as compared to the European soccer leagues. The overall revenue of these leagues is massive compared to any sports league in the world. I just find this amazing.
the USA has 6 times the population of England. It isn't that hard to work out why revenues from TV are higher.
Though I saw that the figures were corrected, this is yet another example of that certain something that pushes people to believe things that are not true. A serious question: Why would you (or a lot of people for that matter) assume Liga generated more revenue than Serie A? I'm not trying to insult or incite an argument. I'm seriously interested in understanding. This incorrect "educated estimate" is far too typical and must be symptomatic of something that leads to such opinions. Is it the American media? The British media? Is it a bias that people get thru group think? What is it? I seriously want to know why people "assume" this and many things along these lines that always leave Serie A at "#3". I'm looking forward to the answer.
Well, all money is spread out among the league to minimze losses and it has been done like this since day 1. Most of your SSS are less than 3 years old with the exception of the HDC and Columbus. Just because a team jumped on the bandwagon earlier than another doesnt mean they all of a sudden are exempt from helping out other teams when they have recieved "financial aid" in the past. Hell the revs have owned there own stadium since day 1, and been hoving around the black since the begining, but in a single entity structure and as such, all teams pool there money so no team loses more than another for what ever reason. Im sure there is a time table on that now though. I also wouldnt say the owners "cant be bothered" to build a new stadium. There are alot of politics and such involved in building a new stadium, its just not that easy to build one. Im going to assume because La Liga has some of the biggest names in the entire world and they pay them a lot of cash ? Most of the big names in Serie A are Italians so one assumes its a more domesticated league where most of the big names in La Liga are world names. Beckham, Ronaldinho etc...
Thanks but it's not really of assistance. And besides, why would a site of factual data help me understand a misconception that isn't based in fact?
Wrong about what? Those original numbers that were posted were later corrected. I'm not asking anyone to show where Liga is number is #2 in league revenue because it's not true. Reading thru all these posts and the links provided, anyone who shares the poster's misconception would see the numbers and revise his "facts". My question is not about the revenue facts. It's about what it is that makes people assume such incorrect things? Back to the beginning we go.
While there's some truth to that, it's a little overdone. It's not like Serie A doesn't have a lot of big names from abroad. My team alone, Milan, has 3 starters from Brazil's national team among others like Janks and Seedorf, Inter has several Argentine, Crespo being perhaps the most known, and others from European countries. The list goes on. Andf they're all paid handsomely. And besides, like in Spain, most of the really big names are confined to several top teams. I doubt the casual fan would recognize many "international stars" outside Real and Barca. But anyway, "stars" is a subjective term. The most famous name, Ronaldinho, may leave Barca and he will continue to be famous and watched no matter where he goes. On a somewhat related sidenote, I remember seeing a stat that showed which leagues were most represented at WC 2006 and EPL was #1, Bundesliga was actually #2 and Serie Awas close behind #3...Liga wasn't even #4 if I recall. Not that this tells the whole story but it is worth noting.
Coincidentally, the US also has 6 times the major sports. (NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, NCAAF, NCAAMB.) You were saying?
so you are saying they people never watch more than one major sport on TV? People who watch the NCAAF, for example, never watch the superbowl? Because if not, it's not remotely similar.
Of course, non-football fans in England spend their weekends sat staring at the wall. Nothing else to do other than watch the Premiership. Nothing.
but having 6 sports isn't remotely as restrictive as having a 6th of the population as they aren't mutualy exclusive. Put it this way. if the only sport in the US was the NFL, but the US had 1/6th population (i.e. about 48 million) would the superbowl national viewing figure be higher or lower than the 90 million who watch now?