Part of the reason for this gap is because of the transfer fees (that's my theory anyway).

Example: cost to Red Sox vs. REal Madrid in optaining a star player for three years:

Red Sox for Manny Ramirez: $20 million a year x 3 years + $0 transfer fees= $60 million
Real Madrid for Ronaldo: $40 million transfer fees + $20 million in salary for 3 years = $60 million.


But this beg the question, why haven't more top soccer players become free agents? Ballack is probably the first player to do so.

Cassano was benched by his coach because he refused to sign an extension: maybe star players are afraid to play out their contract like Ballack is doing. Also, there might be huge backlash from the fans. Imagine Henry playing out his contract at Arsenal and become a free agent.

Of course, all I said are just hypothesis/assumptions.

 

Unlike the rest of the world, Americans do not choose to treat their athletes as slaves, or commodities that are bought and sold on a market, so they do not "pay transfer fees" for players. You either sign the player through free agency or trade players for the player you want.

To address your sports analogies:

In the MLB, the high salaries shown were from a period of several years ago. Nowadays, top players get somewhere in the 10-17 range rather than 17-25.

In the NBA, a salary cap ensures that a team builds around one player or two players or possibly three if lucky. Paying them high salaries will give you a small window to succeed.

In the NFL, the high salaries mean nothing, as only the guaranteed portion is forced to be paid. Now in the case of Peyton Manning, you do realize that his signing bonus was 34.5 million in 2004, but it's evenly paid throughout his contract? His base salary per year is 535,000.

 

Unlike the rest of the world, Americans do not choose to treat their athletes as slaves, or commodities that are bought and sold on a market, so they do not "pay transfer fees" for players. You either sign the player through free agency or trade players for the player you want.

You do realize that you're wrong right?

Americans do not sold their players not because it seems like 'slavery.' If it is, why is it okay to 'trade' a person? because that is exactly what a trade is. Also, transfer fees = slavery? when they are getting paid $10 million a year? If so, I am sure billions of people would want to be that kind of slaves.

The reason behind this is 'history' Babe Ruth was sold to the New York Yankees from the Boston RedSox for a record breaking $125,000 (or something like that) to fund a Broadway play. A year or two later, MLB enacts a law prohibiting 'transfer' without the commissioner's permission. The other sports leagues (basketball, American football, hockey) just follow that example.

The biggest transfer in MLB history was for Ichigo for several millions dollars. So transfer does happen in American sports.

To address your sports analogies:

In the MLB, the high salaries shown were from a period of several years ago. Nowadays, top players get somewhere in the 10-17 range rather than 17-25.

You're wrong. Back it up with facts please. Salary hasn't gone up much for baseball, but it hasn't DECLINE LIKE U SAID.

In the NBA, a salary cap ensures that a team builds around one player or two players or possibly three if lucky. Paying them high salaries will give you a small window to succeed.

In the NFL, the high salaries mean nothing, as only the guaranteed portion is forced to be paid. Now in the case of Peyton Manning, you do realize that his signing bonus was 34.5 million in 2004, but it's evenly paid throughout his contract? His base salary per year is 535,000.

Yes, but NFL has 53 players on its rosters. And yet, at least 10 players make more money from salary + bonus than the highest paid soccer player.

 

I do not wish to make a big deal out of my first statement, so I will just drop it. I will conclude by saying that trading players for players seem fine to me, but putting a price tag on them seems primitive at the same time.
Sorry for any offense.

Lastly, I would like to point out that in years past, ARod and Jeter have gotten huge contracts, one around 25 million and the other around 21 million.

This year, the top free agent Damon got about 14 million per year.

Last year, the top free agent Beltran got about 17 milllion per year.

Those are the facts for MLB.

1 Rodriguez, Alex $ 26,000,000 New York Yankees
2 Bonds, Barry $ 22,000,000 San Francisco Giants
3 Ramirez, Manny $ 22,000,000 Boston Red Sox
4 Jeter, Derek $ 19,600,000 New York Yankees
5 Mussina, Mike $ 19,000,000 New York Yankees
6 Bagwell, Jeff $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
7 Clemens, Roger $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
8 Sosa, Sammy $ 17,000,000 Baltimore Orioles
9 Piazza, Mike $ 16,071,429 New York Mets
10 Jones, Chipper $ 16,061,802 Atlanta Braves
11 Johnson, Randy $ 16,000,000 New York Yankees
12 Brown, Kevin $ 15,714,286 New York Yankees
13 Hampton, Mike $ 15,125,000 Atlanta Braves

Look at the facts.

Rodriquez, Manny, Brown, Chipper, Piazza, Bagwell, Mussina, Jeter all signed in that past era.

Nowadays it's different.

Sosa's situation is unique, and even then, only 17 mil.

PS: Clemens doesn't count. His high price was merely the price to lure the great out of retirement and to fill up seats, the Astros are getting a return on his presence at the park that far exceeds the cost.

 

I do not wish to make a big deal out of my first statement, so I will just drop it. I will conclude by saying that trading players for players seem fine to me, but putting a price tag on them seems primitive at the same time.
Sorry for any offense.

Lastly, I would like to point out that in years past, ARod and Jeter have gotten huge contracts, one around 25 million and the other around 21 million.

This year, the top free agent Damon got about 14 million per year.

Last year, the top free agent Beltran got about 17 milllion per year.

Those are the facts for MLB.

1 Rodriguez, Alex $ 26,000,000 New York Yankees
2 Bonds, Barry $ 22,000,000 San Francisco Giants
3 Ramirez, Manny $ 22,000,000 Boston Red Sox
4 Jeter, Derek $ 19,600,000 New York Yankees
5 Mussina, Mike $ 19,000,000 New York Yankees
6 Bagwell, Jeff $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
7 Clemens, Roger $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
8 Sosa, Sammy $ 17,000,000 Baltimore Orioles
9 Piazza, Mike $ 16,071,429 New York Mets
10 Jones, Chipper $ 16,061,802 Atlanta Braves
11 Johnson, Randy $ 16,000,000 New York Yankees
12 Brown, Kevin $ 15,714,286 New York Yankees
13 Hampton, Mike $ 15,125,000 Atlanta Braves

Look at the facts.

Rodriquez, Manny, Brown, Chipper, Piazza, Bagwell, Mussina, Jeter all signed in that past era.

Nowadays it's different.

Sosa's situation is unique, and even then, only 17 mil.

PS: Clemens doesn't count. His high price was merely the price to lure the great out of retirement and to fill up seats, the Astros are getting a return on his presence at the park that far exceeds the cost.

But the salary hasn't decline like you said from 17-25 million to 10-17 million. It is holding steady, though not increasing.

Damon and Beltran are not comparable to ARod and Jeter in talents or star quality. Would Damon/Beltran of today get the same deal as Arod back in 1999? Sosa isn't what he used to be.

But I do agree with you that salary for top player is topping off. But maybe the luxury tax has something to do with it.

For those that do not know what a luxury tax is: Basically, if you spend over a certain amount, you have to pay a penalty. For Yankees, I think the penalty each year was around $25-30 million. Imagine Chelsea paying the EPL a penalty of $30-50 million each year and you get the picture of what a luxury tax is.

Oh, this penalty is distributed to the lowest revenue teams. In EPL term, it would be the like of Sunderland, Portsmouth etc...It's a form of revenue sharing.

 

Exactly, spot on. There is currently an investigation going on with the Yankees as well, b/c it is speculated that they are underestimating their revenue from their cable television network YES. They say they earn 60 million/year from the channel, but in reality that number is thought to be much, much higher. Thus, saving them revenue sharing costs by underestimating the revenue on the books from the channel.

 

So with the income from their advertising contracts thoses NFL, NBA, NHL players earn even more money ? Insane. Really.

 

So with the income from their advertising contracts thoses NFL, NBA, NHL players earn even more money ? Insane. Really.

These leagues have a salary cap (NFL/NBA/NHL) or a luxury/penalty tax (MLB), otherwise the salary for top players would increase a lot more.

NHL shut down a whole season last year because the players DO NOT want a salary cap. Of course, they caved in.

Major League Baseball also shut down part of its season like 10-11 years ago when the owners wanted a salary cap. National Football League brought in replacement players when its players went on strike (salary cap issue again).

Soccer players will fight tooth and nail against the salary cap (if one is proposed). Can you imagine how much Rio Ferdinand will get paid if EPL has a salary cap of around $60 million for every team?

 

Americans have more money, so they can pay more for their players...

 

Americans have more money, so they can pay more for their players...

Not true.

REal Madrid and Manchester United make more money than any American sports team.

Revenue: http://www.forbes.com/lists/ and then click on Sports

Top soccer team revenue: Man U $315 million

NFL top team: $287 million (Redskins)

Top MLB team revenue: $264 (Yankees)

Top NBA team revenue: $170 (Lakers)

This was a year ago. Real Madrid tops Man U to become #1.

AC Milan/Chelsea/Barcelona/Juventus has around $260 million in revenue each year. In other word, 8 out of the top 10 revenue sports generating teams are SOCCER. With only the Yankees and Red Skins part of this top 10.

However, Yankees and RedSkins do not have a $40 million expense bill each year from transfers. Real/Chelsea/Man U does. Their net expenditure on transfer fees (money paid - money received) is around $30-40 million a year.

If Real/Man U gets every players on free/Bosman, they would have an increase of $30-40 million in profit each year. Ballack is exploiting the system by going on a free this summer so he will get an upfront sign on fees. Usually, his transfer fees would be around $30 million. This summer, it will be $0. However, I expect whoever get him will have to pay a large sign on fees.

 

It is interesting to note that FIFA's World Cup generated revenue was the highest for the 94 cup held in the United States, mostly b/c of the huge advertising and revenue contracts that were handed out with the event in the USA.

 

look at those Yankees are paying for everybody :nono: And A-Rod is a "Mets" fan

 

Part of the reason for this gap is because of the transfer fees (that's my theory anyway).

Example: cost to Red Sox vs. REal Madrid in optaining a star player for three years:

Red Sox for Manny Ramirez: $20 million a year x 3 years + $0 transfer fees= $60 million
Real Madrid for Ronaldo: $40 million transfer fees + $20 million in salary for 3 years = $60 million.


But this beg the question, why haven't more top soccer players become free agents? Ballack is probably the first player to do so.

Cassano was benched by his coach because he refused to sign an extension: maybe star players are afraid to play out their contract like Ballack is doing. Also, there might be huge backlash from the fans. Imagine Henry playing out his contract at Arsenal and become a free agent.

Of course, all I said are just hypothesis/assumptions.

Van Bommel did it last year and he earned a transfer to Barça.

 

It is interesting to note that FIFA's World Cup generated revenue was the highest for the 94 cup held in the United States, mostly b/c of the huge advertising and revenue contracts that were handed out with the event in the USA.

http://www.kenn.com/soccer/worldcup/

Average attendance:

Italy 1990: 48,391
USA 1994: 68,982
France 1998: 43,366
Korea/Japan 2002: 42,269

It is not just sponsorship/advertisement. Attendance has a huge impact on the revenue.

As for the other football, it's huge. National Football League gets $4 billion a year in TV rights. That's right $4 billion A YEAR from television.

Under the latest contracts with several TV networks, the NFL will get about $4 billion a season to divide among 32 team owners. That's up from the $2.8 billion per season under the previous eight-year contract.

 

Football squads are bigger than basketball squads, at least. I'd bet Chelsea's overall wage bill is more than Miami Heat's.

 

Lampard is the higest paid player in England btw

 

Its worth remembering that their are more teams and therefore the money is a lot more spread about in every country. I mean if you combined all of the London clubs together you'd have the wealth of a small country. I don't think NBA, NFL etc. have a second, third and fourth division as well as a conference. Thats just England, Scotland has its own leagues, Wales, NI etc. plus their is the reserve leagues and the multiple youth leagues. Which is a shitload of monetary distribution. For a country that counts for just a large state in America.

 

Footballers Fortunes

there was a thread on how footballers earn compared to other sportsmen... but I Dont know if anything has been done like this, but Im intrested to know

how much various footballers earn, be it per week,appearences, sign on fees, bonuses, sponsorship etc etc

also outside football invetments and otherstuff...

everyone knows Beckham is waaaaay up there in the money charts ... ok thats cool... I know that Fowler is more of a MultiMilionare who happens to play football category

Steve Macmahonmin is STINKING RICH ... but what bout the Kaka's, Shevagols, Joaquins' of this world... how much r they worth...?

but what about other players in other leagues..

 

nahtino

There is already an existing thread regarding this. Please use the "Search" function and search for similar threads in the forum before opening a new thread on topics which have already been discussed.

Threads merged.

 

Its worth remembering that their are more teams and therefore the money is a lot more spread about in every country. I mean if you combined all of the London clubs together you'd have the wealth of a small country. I don't think NBA, NFL etc. have a second, third and fourth division as well as a conference. Thats just England, Scotland has its own leagues, Wales, NI etc. plus their is the reserve leagues and the multiple youth leagues. Which is a shitload of monetary distribution. For a country that counts for just a large state in America.

That's pretty much it. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's 2 Conferences in the NBA (East and West) consisting of 6 Divisions (5 teams in each) and that is it. No youth teams, no reserves teams, no lower leagues, nothing. And that's in a country as large as USA. In England there is 92 teams in the football league (from Premiership to League 2) and that's not including the reserve teams, the youth systems, the huge backroom staff needed, then you have the lower divisions like the conference etc. And England is roughly the size of Florida.

 

Lampard is the higest paid player in England btw

At least Lampard has skill...**no offence** but a Red Devil's defender going by the name of Ferdinand gets paid around 100 000 for playing s*** for majority of the time...to prove this unfairness, even Wes Brown is better than him, and he gets paid much less *comparably*

 

Lampard is the higest paid player in England btw

Incorrect. It's Rio Ferdinand with £110,000 a week. Rooney is making less than half of that at around £50,000 a week.


Richest Clubs that was recently released (REVENUES)

1(2) Real Madrid £186.2m
2(1) Man Utd £166.4m
3(3) AC Milan £158m
4(5) Juventus £154.9m
5(4) Chelsea £149.1m
6(7) Barcelona £140.4m
7(9) Bayern Munich £128m
8(10) Liverpool £122.4m
9(8) Inter Milan £119.7m
10(6) Arsenal £115.7m
11(12) Roma £89m
12(11) Newcastle £87.1m
13(14) Spurs £70.6m
14(17) Schalke £65.8m
15(-) Lyon £62.7m
16(13) Celtic £62.6m
17(16) Man City £60.9m
18(-) Everton £60m
19(-) Valencia £57.2m
20(15) Lazio £56.1m

 

Ballack was rumored to Chelsea for 121,000 pounds a week (around $10.9 mil a year) which would make him the highest paid soccer player in the world according to the Guardian.

We also know that Lampard and John Terry salary info from this info.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,283-2067334,00.html

Ballack’s arrival as the club’s highest-paid player would also represent a financial slight to Chelsea’s biggest earners, with the £120,000 a week they are prepared to pay him dwarfing the £80,000-a-week salaries of Lampard and John Terry. If Ballack does sign, Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, can expect a stampede of players demanding new contracts in the summer.

The best thing to do is give Ballack a £80,000-a-week salary and maybe $10 million sign-on fees. Ballack would take this over £120,000 a week + $5 million sign-on fees in a heart-beat. This way, the salary structure is intact and everyone is happy.

 

but i think beckham gets 150,000 pounds a week and so does steven gerrard

 

but i think beckham gets 150,000 pounds a week and so does steven gerrard

and yet several different newspapers think differently.

The highest paid Premiership player is Rio Ferdinand and he is making around 115,000 pounds a week. Ballack is being offer 121,000 pounds a week. According to the Guardian, that would make him the highest paid footballer in the world.

As for Beckham, several newspaper reported that he is making around 4-5 millions pounds a year.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/t...hod=full&siteid=66633&headline=becks-earns--47k-a-day-for-a-year-name_page.html

Beckham's wages with Real Madrid top £4million a year. He also has a string of lucrative advertising contracts with Adidas, Gillette, Pepsi, Vodafone and Police sunglasses.


In March last year, he signed a contract with Adidas reportedly worht £1.25million a year