Football

You are reading a single comment by @cornelius_blackfoot and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

Greenbank in reply to @cornelius_blackfoot

Despite the reliance on tv money, the way to profitability is always going to be matchday revenue, bigger the stadium you can fill, the better off you’ll be...

Not really in the Premiership: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44850888

Bournemouth (ok, tiny ground) only got 4% of their revenue from matchday revenue last season.

But definitely in the Championship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44981103

... as the gap between Premier League income and Championship income has widened to ~£130m.

•

cornelius_blackfoot in reply to @Greenbank

just read that, and there are numerous quotes about how full stadiums lead to teams making a profit..

"Kieran Maguire, a football finance expert at the University of Liverpool, said that the importance of ticket sales, while overshadowed by huge broadcast deals, remains significant at the top of the sport.
Manchester United, recently ranked as the second most valuable sports franchise in the world by business magazine Forbes, brought in more than £111.6m in matchday revenue.
None of the Premier League's top five money makers - Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea - would have made a profit without matchday incomes being included."
"Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool have each expanded their ground capacity in recent years, and because they do not have benevolent owners in the same vein as Chelsea and Manchester City, matchday income is essential as a means of providing funding for investment in the playing squad in terms of both wages and transfer fees," Maguire said.
"When Liverpool expanded Anfield, a significant proportion of the new seats went to corporate partners and hospitality fans.
"This allows the club to increase its revenue per fan per match, which is an ever more important financial metric given that broadcast income is plateauing and corporate partnership deals are reaching saturation point."

also isn't the "product" that is Premier League football, tied into the fans in the stadium showing their support?

"Football Supporters' Federation chair Malcolm Clarke. Players and managers come and go, but we are always there. The reason that they can get lucrative TV deals is because the product shows the crowd, the noise, the away fans and the atmosphere - it is all part of it.
"On one level they don't need the fans because they have got so much money from broadcasters, but at another level they do need fans to keep an attractive product.
"How boring would it be to watch a Premier League game in an empty stadium?"

and also if the stadiums were empty would there be any point in merchandising/sponsorship deals in stadium

"Swans chief operating officer Chris Pearlman added matchdays also generate the "greatest amount" in merchandise sales, with in-stadium signage, local sponsorship deals and programme advertising all heavily dependant on fans attending games."

•

Greenbank in reply to @cornelius_blackfoot

That's a false dichotomy, I wasn't suggesting that no fans are required. A sell-out of 40,000 fans is obviously better than no fans (for revenue, atmosphere and allure for the TV rights).

My point is that a regular sell-out of 40,000 fans might be better than 50,000 fans in a 60,000 stadium. Empty seats don't sell the product (just see how Arsenal and West Ham are slated when the empty seats are so obvious).

The major route to profitibility will probably overseas merchandise sales, hence the pre-season tours of random countries in random tournaments. This doesn't work that well for anyone outside of the top half of the Premiership.

[EDIT] For clubs with ancient/small stadiums then a new stadium (with more/nicer/better corporate facilities) will be a huge gain (but for a huge outlay), but that's not just about adding capacity. Arsenal struggle to sell out 60,000 regularly. Spurs will after the honeymoon period is over and the new stadium tourists have been and gone. Chelsea too (if they ever go through with their redevelopment).

Fulham's proposed redevelopment of the Riverside stand would be great for them as that would add capacity (another 5,000 I think) and replace the aged corporate facilities. [I'd also be very happy that it opens up the path along the riverside too.]

One of the biggest fuckups that a club can do is overestimate their regular fan base and build too big a stadium, or build it too far away. Darlington were the biggest example of this (some of the latter but mostly the former problem.)

Football

About

LFGSS