Yay, we're worth more than Barca...

Claudius

... but much less valuable than Manchester United.

According to Forbes, United are worth £1.165BILLION, and we are worth £740M. Barca are worth £660M.

Would be interesting to see how they value the various assets, particularly players. Any player valuation based on depreciated acquisition values of players would undervalue Barca (and overvalue Liverpool 🙂 )

The listings are below. We could all learn a lot from the top 3 teams in the list.

Manchester United £1.165billion
Dallas Cowboys £1.13bn
New York Yankees £1.06bn
Washington Redskins £960million
Real Madrid £900m
New England Patriots £850m
Arsenal £740m
New York Giants £734m
Houstan Texans £727m
New York Jets £708m

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3695485/Manchester-United-named-most-valuable-sports-team-in-the-world.html

Biggus

Burnwinter

I'm pleased our club is valued highly, although it's no consolation for the lack of trophies.

Claudius

What's remarkable is that the top 10 is filled with NFL teams. These are clubs that play 15 games a season. They do, however, play before 60 - 80,000 fans and absolutely dominate American TV when they play. Some of them charge 200+ pounds per game for club-level seats. The NFL is an absurd money-making machine

Rohit

The broadcasting rights are sold for obnoxious numbers and so are the sums paid by advertisers for spots in the Super Bowl, works for them though.

Klaus

Also, no transfer fees since the players are owned by the league. There's a wage cap too, or used to be until recently.

Claudius

The whole players owned by the league system works really well. If it wasn't for the EU, the Premier League would have been better off setting up an American-style league with a closed top-division, a draft and salary caps. Everyone would have been eating at high table.

Meatwad

i think you all are confusing mls with other american sports league with that players owned by the league business. the players are owned by the team they play for. players can be traded and then the new team takes on the salary obligations. what i like most about american sports league is the relationship with agents. the players give a % (typically 3-5) of their money to the agent and the teams have nothing to see with it.

Claudius

The players are effectively owned by the league. The clubs are franchises, and (at least in the NBA) a team can trade you to another team with you having little to no say in the matter). Someone like Denilson would just get a call telling him that he is now a Newcastle player and that Enrique would be replacing him at Arsenal.

Meatwad

the word effectively doesn't apply at all. dwight howard is owned entirely by the orlando magic just like cesc is owned entirely by arsenal. just because they can be traded anywhere doesn't mean they aren't owned by the team that's trading them away. and some players have no-trade clauses implemented in their contracts where they can approve or reject a team.

Claudius

I used the word effectively owned by the league because of the fact that as I mentioned you can be moved without your consent. Ask Sam Cassell who played for 4 teams in 2 years in the 90s, joking about living in hotels and not bothering to get a house because he wasn't sure when next he'd be shifted.

Or think about the fact that the players enter a draft with the NBA, and then they are selected by teams and they have to go where selected. Only once, in the case of Steve Francis, has a player refused to go the team that selected him in the draft. Otherwise, players end up with the club that selects them in the draft, irrespective of their preferences. They basically give up their right to choose a team when they enter the draft.

As for your no-trade clause.... there are ₄₀₀ players in the NBA and only TWO (2) have no-trade clauses. One of them is the greatest active player. The other is current Finals MVP.