• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Transfer window myth busting

Status
Not open for further replies.

peekay

Very Well-Known
Member
A sizeable chunk of this article is known to most posters but I think it is worth a read anyway. Already I have seen a couple of posts about how Zlatan's shirt sales will cover his wages and all. I expect those posts to increase if Zlatan is successful in England. In the past I remember several posts on how David Beckham's shirt sales accounted for his Madrid transfer fee and wages. In fact I believed that for several years. This article shows the fallacy in such arguments.

Despite being the most popular sport in the world, there are some widely held myths about how the football industry works, especially relating to the financial aspects.

This is largely due to an intentional lack of transparency surrounding football finances, mainly regarding transfer fees and wages. This is in stark contrast to other popular sports, such as the NBA and NFL, where player costs are publicly reported and every single deal is viewed through the lens of how it will affect the salary cap.

With privately-owned football clubs free from most public reporting standards, the wider fan base get most of their information about what this player cost or what that player is earning third or fourth-hand through newspapers and online media.

But why are player costs important? After all, it’s not our money, right?

Disregarding that it is kind of our money – the huge increase in Premier League TV revenue, for
example, is being paid for in the form of Sky and BT subscription fees from UK viewers – with domestic and UEFA financial regulations, clubs are prevented from spending much more than they earn. In practice, this results in individual spending caps for each team.

Whenever a club signs a bumper new commercial deal or a league gets a huge new TV contract, that brings an advantage with regards to spending power. However, each club has a finite amount it can spend on player costs and, therefore, it is essential to maximise value.

Understanding how clubs calculate player costs helps us to see how they really value certain players, as well as how the money is being spent, which players provide good value, and which players do not.

For the rest of the article -
Read more: http://thesetpieces.com/features/transfer-window-myth-busting/#ixzz4FFXtw0kr
 
It is what have been saying all the time. Clubs get mega big sponsorship deals so they can afford to buy top class players that will earn the sponsors more money. The sponsor(s) pay for most of the transfer fee. If United for example wanted to sign Messi then their big sponsor(s) would increase the sponsorship deal and by that way pay most of the transfer fee. The club get the player and the sponsor(s) earn more money.

At the same time the value of the club increases and everyone is happy.

Pogba isn't worth £100m+ when it comes down to football skills but he worth that if you include the marketing bit for the sponsor(s).
 
It is what have been saying all the time. Clubs get mega big sponsorship deals so they can afford to buy top class players that will earn the sponsors more money. The sponsor(s) pay for most of the transfer fee. If United for example wanted to sign Messi then their big sponsor(s) would increase the sponsorship deal and by that way pay most of the transfer fee. The club get the player and the sponsor(s) earn more money.

At the same time the value of the club increases and everyone is happy.

Pogba isn't worth £100m+ when it comes down to football skills but he worth that if you include the marketing bit for the sponsor(s).

There obviously is a correlation between club performance, sponsorship deal size, and purchasing top class players but I dont think it happens the way you are stating. Of course if a club is successful then they can negotiate better sponsorship deals which provides the club more money to attract more top quality players.

But I really don't see a sponsor financing a club to buy better players the way you are describing. If I was Addidas why would I give 150 million to any club to buy Messi. Wouldn't it be cheaper for me to go directly to Messi and negotiate an advertising or marketing campaign?
 
There obviously is a correlation between club performance, sponsorship deal size, and purchasing top class players but I dont think it happens the way you are stating. Of course if a club is successful then they can negotiate better sponsorship deals which provides the club more money to attract more top quality players.

But I really don't see a sponsor financing a club to buy better players the way you are describing. If I was Addidas why would I give 150 million to any club to buy Messi. Wouldn't it be cheaper for me to go directly to Messi and negotiate an advertising or marketing campaign?

Not if he move to a bigger club with more fans. They also want the player to be succesful of course. It is better for them if he is seen as a winner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom