Soccernomics, Global Leagues, TV Money and Quality

The magazine Private Eye, a continuous thorn in the side of the corrupt since the 1960s, regularly features articles from football clubs, as well as numerous articles concerning Mohammed "Al" Fayed. If I remember correctly, the debt isn't to Fayed himself, but to one of his offshore companies, and that debt is supposed to start being re-paid at £10 million a year.

Overall though, the point is that Fulham's improvement has been paid for by a benefactor, not tv income, and if they really are any closer to the top sides than they were six or seven years ago, it's because of the extra money he's given them, not a rise in tv rights.

Ultimately every single rise in tv revenues has been matched by a hike in wages, and there really isn't a great deal to suggest the money from this tv rise won't be absorbed in exactly the same way.

 

I don't think EPL teams having that much money will make a difference anyway... there are only so many players who are going to go play for a 16th place club just because the money is better.

 

Don't "stars of the team" make the results a "more attractive prospect"?

Wouldn't Reading be a more likely candidate to earn more points with Arshavin instead of Jay Tabb?

Why is it overspending?

The guy has $2B+ or more to his name and he likes spending it on his club instead of the luxurious yachts and gold plated toilets.

I found this on a Wigan fan forum :

http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=558&fid=516&sty=2&act=1&mid=2114458027

Presuming the above is in the ballpark, would Wigan be better off if Roberto Martinez had a bunch of £50k/w players like Everton and Sunderland? Or £80k/w players like QPR?

The point being is that, as you compress the high vs the low ratio, you also compress the results because there's a very high correlation between the expenditures and the outcomes.

And, by "so many", you must mean anyone who can walk, run or jump.

No, but the ratio becomes smaller and, pretty soon, you'll have FIFA Top 25 team internationals on every club.

Not sure if the 3X estimate is correct.

Swansea's payroll was about $30M, while the top clubs are approaching $200M.

​

Read more: Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2012/05/31/swans-fly-high-on-smallest-budget-of-promoted-teams-91466-31081370/#ixzz2JLMbfv8V​

Allegedly, Bayern is giving Pep $400M to invest.

Sometimes you look at these numbers and go .... wowwwwwwww....

 

1.3 million adds up though .... when you take the 20m difference and then on top of that, add another roughly 23.4 due to table placement and you've got a much different picture than you're trying to paint.

 

sure but its fairly even from top to bottom. I mean swansea got a lot of money and were just promoted.

sure a 15 million dollar difference between the two teams (man u) but honestly manure are going to be on tv more often. it is what it is.

 

It's not fairly even when the point, was that the disparity from top to bottom is getting wider even with "shared" monies and flat monies (table placement for instance). There was still a difference of 43m between top and bottom without even getting into team specific revenues.

 

its closer in bundesliga (agreed)

but compared to la liga this is dead even. lol.

 

And there always be, Teams that make the Champions League will make more money, now I guess the argument is that is English teams shared the money more evenly then different teams would make the champions league, but I doubt the big teams would go for that.

 

Real madrid and barcelona always make champions league, bayern munich is always there.

these are traditional european champions.

man city has never been there before like they are now. albeit they are a joke in the compeitition but thats neither here nor there.

 

Not really.

Unless a club signs major stars when they haven't had them before, it's not going to attract previously uninterested fans.

Being 6th rather than 14, on the other hand, could well tempt people along.

Not if everyone else has strengthened as well.

because it's unsustainable. If he did ever pull out, Fulham would be screwed, not just by the amount they are overspending, but by the debt they have. Even if the debt was totally wiped out, they'd need a fire sale to get their wage bill down.

Paying an average £20k more on salaries will get you better players (or should) but it wouldn't make you any better in terms of results if everyone else is paying £20k more on average as well.

It's like saying results for MLS teams would improve if the salary cap was raised by 25%.

 

75% top marginal tax will make many top players want out of France.

 

So, you add Arshavin to Pogrebnyak and put more butts in the seats. It's not like you had either prior to 2012.

If everyone spends roughly the same, you'll have a picture much closer resembling the NFL, where there are still teams going 13:3 and, on the opposite end, 2:14.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/standings

Death is certain but its timing is not, so until then, they better live it up.

It'd make MLS more palatable and less like a pub league. All within the desired goals.

The 75% tax was struck down by the French Supreme Court on fairly flimsy grounds (the "married filing separately" exceptions) and Hollande has vowed to reintroduce it on terms that would pass.

I posted on the YA boards when it first came out that it will lead to the exodus of players from Ligue 1 and this is certainly coming to fruition.

Something to be a subject of interest to folks in California as well.

 

Yawn.

Don't go there. It's not much closer to a "pub league" than 90% of Europe's top flights. It's not like Fulham and Stoke are bastions of sexy football.

 

This was Fulham's lineup vs. Wests Ham yesterday.

Schwarzer - Australian international GK.

Riether - over 250 Bundesliga appearances

Senderos - Swiss international

Hengeland - Norwegian international

Riise - Norwegian international

Karagounis - Greek international

Sidwell - over 100 EPL appearances - ex-Reading, Chelsea, Aston Villa

Duff - Irish international

Ruiz - Costa Rican international

Berbatov - Bulgarian international (ex-Tottenham, ex-ManU)

Rodallega - Colombian international

As subs - on the pitch came up Baird (No. Ireland), Dejagah (Iran), Petric (Croatia).

Now, that's a $50M payroll right there. Whixh MLS clubs compete on that level again?

 

Except that's not what you said.

 

So?

Do you really think previously uninterested fans are going to come to games because Arshavin is in the team?

That's just not how it works. Top big name players, yes, they'll get fans curious enough to want to go along. Other players, no.

It's like suggesting crowds at Kansas would spike if they signed James Milner.

Again, I keep coming back to the point than none of the previous rises in tv money have resulted in things becoming more equal, so why should this be any different?

You also seem to be ignoring just how difficult it would be to lure stars worthy of the name to England for most clubs. A good player at Borussia Dortmund or Lyon isn't going to sign for Wigan just because they can match his salary.

The sort of fan who doesn't go to MLS "because it's like a pub league" will never go, ever. Just like the sort of fan who'll support Chelsea or Man Utd over their local club here, the bar of acceptability will always keep being raised by them to justify not going - and more crucially, to justify their support of the "big club" they watch on tv.

 

That doesn't make them "palatable".

The point that you sidestepped was that MLS gets too much crap because people don't take it for what it is. It's treated like a dirty word among football fans as if it shouldn't be taken seriously, when it's quality isn't so far from the average outside the established, megamoney leagues.

Yet if somebody goes to watch Bradford City, or people in Luxembourg attend Avenir Beggen games, it's taken as the reasonable, credible act of watching your own domestic league.

But if we want to just make snarky, cherry-picked, misleading comparisons, then LA Galaxy's forward line was more productive in the Premiership last January than Liverpool's.

 

As a Man Utd fan who resided in East Anglia til the age of 30, I'd like to point out that I've seen starting line-ups containing Ralph Milne.

Though I should probably also note that from Primary to High School, I never knew more than around half-a-dozen kids who supported Man Utd at any one time (outside my family, who were all fans).

Then suddenly in 1993, they were everywhere - so I see your point.

 

It is far back on the quality and it's far above on athleticism ... but you don't coach athleticism. You coach everything but.

So, yes, when I see an MLS team unable to string passes together or create a decent shot on goal, I would describe that as "unpalatable" and on the level of Roseanne's singing.

But to each is own.

 

That's hardly descriptive of MLS, which proves my point.