The Richest Sports Clubs In The World

[ant22]

Saw this thread on the Hawthorn board from a poster called mustang, and I thought it would be a good MB discussion thread.

There was an article listing the richest sports clubs in the world over the last year. The qualification was to have revenue of over 20 million euros, which several AFL clubs managed.

http://stadiumzone.weebly.com/

The Top 5 AFL clubs were -

186. Collingwood €56 million
266. West Coast Eagles €37 million
285. Essendon FC €33 million
286. Geelong FC €33 million
307. Hawthorn FC €30 million

Interesting list I thought, and really puts into perspective how small the AFL is compared to some other sports. Also interesting to see Port Adelaide, Melbourne & Sydney all make more money than Richmond

Thought I would share the list with you all as it's a real eye opener.

To be honest i was suprised our clubs were even in the top 300. The pies for instance are bigger that a couple of premier league clubs some big european clubs and the new jersey nets.

For what is purely a domestic competion in a country which is still very small I thought there would be alot more clubs around the world the generate alot more revenue.

 

[Hoops]

I remember when a few Rugby league nongs scoffed at John O'Neil's suggestion that the AFL was the NFL of Australia.
The total revenue of NFL's 32 clubs is about 12 times that of the total revenue of AFL's 17 clubs. And guess what? The US economy is about 12 times that of the Australian economy.

 

[100action]

It also means next to nothing because its just a rating on revenue not on profit.

profits mean nothing in the AFL.

 

[SM]

Yeww, Hull City are above all AFL clubs except Collingwood. Suck it.

 

[mcgarnacle]

WOW! Just WOW!

We have nuffies here downplaying importance of revenue.

Considering revenue is practically the finanical measure of customer value an organisation generates, and it's long-term customer value that generates sustainable shareholder value, i would think that it was ****ing important.

if one-eyed AFL supporters feel so insecure about their clubs lower ranking re revenue generation on a global scale, the mere point that the AFL market is much more local, regional, and smaller than many of those wouldve been sufficient. But to blow off the importance of revenue in any business is downright embarrassing.

 

[Monkey King]

When looking at a measure of the sheer size of an operation I'd say revenue isn't a bad way to go. Doesn't necessarily equal the richest sports clubs or most successful (financially I mean, not on field).

Yep. Revenue gives an idea of the scope of an entity's operations and/or market, hence why US football teams should have higher revenues. From an even start point, cumulative net operating income may be more influential than cumulative revenues in determining who has more in the bank at the end of the day, but is money in the bank what really determines richness? An example ...

Let's say I make $350k per annum, rent my stately home in Canterbury and lease my Z8. I drink a bottle of Grange every second night and have a penchant for expensive foods and other luxuries, taking first class holidays at least twice a year. Come years end, I've spent all but one thousand dollars.

My buddy makes $70k per annum, rents a home in Fitzroy, has simple enough tastes, owns his own Series 3 and takes a trip to Byron once a year. By years end he still has $10k in the bank.

Who out of these two, would you regard as being richer?

 

[Geoffa32]

I think revenue is a better gauge than profit if you're determining the size of a club's financial power.

Profits aren't really that important are they? As long as you're solvent, debt isn't that big a deal.

Port are on that list, Adelaide are not.

Which club has more financial power?


I am guessing revenues from the Prince of Wales, PAMFC, and Port Club are included? Match Day AFL revenues are not. As the SANFL collect these.

 

[PortBrillance]

Port Adelaide > Crows.

They don't even make the list! We have always been richer than them, and always will be

 

[doingthangs]

lock this thread and perma ban op

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Port are on that list, Adelaide are not.

Which club has more financial power?


I am guessing revenues from the Prince of Wales, PAMFC, and Port Club are included? Match Day AFL revenues are not. As the SANFL collect these.

I would assume those figures would include match day revenues.

 

[Geoffa32]

Only one NRL team, Brisbane Broncos in 411th place. No southern hemisphere union teams.

14 AFL teams, only excluding Gold Coast, West Sydney, North and ...Adelaide?

I'm guessing that there's something wrong with the list if Adelaide is worse off than Port Adelaide.

All of the other AFL clubs have match day revenues included. Apart from us and Port. This is because the SANFL take it and pay the clubs a "profit" after we hit a break even (rumoured to be around 27-8K attendance).

Port are in the list as they have pokie revenues via the Port Club and a hotel they own.

As per the franchise agreement with the SANFL we are not allowed to own pokies. SANFL own a tavern at West Lakes, it used to be called the Crows Tavern, but it had no association with our club. Called Checkside now.


There is going to be a change to the licence agreement soon, part of that will be the ability for the AFC to own poker machines.

 

[laminex]

I agree mate, staggered at the lack of basic understanding!

Debt is never good unless you are making money from it, To many AFL clubs are not. To many sell there brand at a loss and claim the gross to be something it isn't.

Like Collingwood saying this year they turn over 90 mill gross. so what, last year they only made a profit because member of the board gave 5 mill (VISY MONEY). It is not hard to build a company to turn over a lot of money it is a lot harder to build one that make real profit.

 

[Rob]

Port are on that list, Adelaide are not.

Which club has more financial power?


I am guessing revenues from the Prince of Wales, PAMFC, and Port Club are included? Match Day AFL revenues are not. As the SANFL collect these.

This is basically why revenue isn't a great measure to compare clubs - because some own high turnover businesses which will inflate the revenue but do little towards the club's financial strength. Hell, if a club wants to do some share trading it wouldn't be hard at all to get their revenue up over $100 million. But if they don't make money on it then it's hardly an indicator of their financial strength.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Id say revenue and this list is pretty irrelevant in the AFL. The league is a tightly controlled cooperative that only "competes" within itself. Its all leveled out anyway, success is simply determined by recruiting nous and the taking of opportunities that inevitably present themselves.

 

[laminex]

Yep. Revenue gives an idea of the scope of an entity's operations and/or market, hence why US football teams should have higher revenues. From an even start point, cumulative net operating income may be more influential than cumulative revenues in determining who has more in the bank at the end of the day, but is money in the bank what really determines richness? An example ...

Let's say I make $350k per annum, rent my stately home in Canterbury and lease my Z8. I drink a bottle of Grange every second night and have a penchant for expensive foods and other luxuries, taking first class holidays at least twice a year. Come years end, I've spent all but one thousand dollars.

My buddy makes $70k per annum, rents a home in Fitzroy, has simple enough tastes, owns his own Series 3 and takes a trip to Byron once a year. By years end he still has $10k in the bank.

Who out of these two, would you regard as being richer?

So very well said.

 

[Geoffa32]

I would assume those figures would include match day revenues.

Nope
http://www.maynereport.com/images/2010/09/21-15CS7G4CU00.pdf


Our revenue comprised of (in 2009)

Season Ticket and AFL memberships
Sponsorship and fundraising
AFL Sourced Revenue (Distributions)
Membership income.


No match day revenues, ie match day ticket sales and catering/parking included. Season ticket sales are part of the membership, just split up into the ticket/membership component. This would also include the money recieved back from the SANFL for our match day income.


http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/portals/0/port_docs/2010_PAFC-Annual-Report.pdf

Ports revenue in 2010 broken down as

AFL Distribution
Prize Money
Match Revenue, shown as a minus to reflect paying SANFL for losses on match day. SANFL collect actual revenues.
Marketing Revenue
Merchandise
Licenced Venue, this would be more in 2011 as they acquired their hotel late 2010
Other Revenue (extra AFL money, iteres).

Again no actual match day revenues shown.


Collingwood Revenues.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/portals/0/magpies_docs/CFC_annual_report_2010.pdf


Social Club and Gaming
Marketing and Sponsorship
AFL Distributions and match returns
Travel Agency
Totalling a massive $75m.




When the licence agreement changes and the Crows get a pub somewhere we will be back up with the big boys.

 

[neroblack]

Debt is never good unless you are making money from it, To many AFL clubs are not. To many sell there brand at a loss and claim the gross to be something it isn't.

Like Collingwood saying this year they turn over 90 mill gross. so what, last year they only made a profit because member of the board gave 5 mill (VISY MONEY). It is not hard to build a company to turn over a lot of money it is a lot harder to build one that make real profit.

I don't think the aim of the big AFL clubs is to consistently make a profit, but only because they're looking to spend as much as they can on the football dept..so to say that they only made a profit due to donations is kind of one dimensional, the "football spend" should be something they look to maximise based on known revenue..

 

[Synaphai]

Saw this thread on the Hawthorn board from a poster called mustang, and I thought it would be a good MB discussion thread.

There was an article listing the richest sports clubs in the world over the last year. The qualification was to have revenue of over 20 million euros, which several AFL clubs managed.

http://stadiumzone.weebly.com/

The Top 5 AFL clubs were -

186. Collingwood €56 million
266. West Coast Eagles €37 million
285. Essendon FC €33 million
286. Geelong FC €33 million
307. Hawthorn FC €30 million

Interesting list I thought, and really puts into perspective how small the AFL is compared to some other sports. Also interesting to see Port Adelaide, Melbourne & Sydney all make more money than Richmond

Thought I would share the list with you all as it's a real eye opener.

Obviously these teams' revenue is hurt because there are so many teams in the same metropolitan area. Most other leagues aren't like that. If Melbourne/Geelong had only one team it would be in the top 25 and with only two teams one would surely be in the top 50.

 

[Slattery_20]

On the contrary...for a sport that is only played in one country in the world, this is an awesome achievement. It's the equivalent of say Irish hurling clubs making the list, or Cheshire cheese rollers, or any sport that is only played locally

Or, say, Gridiron teams... oh wait...

I dunno.
US is ~300M; their gridiron competes with MLB & NBA (Hockey in the north).
Aus is ~20M; AFL competes with cricket (and NRL in the north-east).

If their big clubs are ~15 times the size of our big clubs, I think that's about right.

 

[SM]

Obviously these teams' revenue is hurt because there are so many teams in the same metropolitan area. Most other leagues aren't like that. If Melbourne/Geelong had only one team it would be in the top 25 and with only two teams one would surely be in the top 50.

Totally. Far too many teams in Melbourne. Not like a city like London.

Oh wait..

 

[thejester]

I understand the importance of revenue but it still seems pretty simplistic. I mean, I find it hard to believe the Redbacks are pulling in 30 mil a year; and if they are, how is it they're well ahead of every other state side and surely their method of collecting this money would be so different to other sporting sides as to make the comparison almost worthless? Same with with the Saudi football teams, their 'earning power' would come from their ridiculously wealthy owners and is not an actual reflection of long-term financial stability or 'power'.

 

[Geoffa32]

I understand the importance of revenue but it still seems pretty simplistic. I mean, I find it hard to believe the Redbacks are pulling in 30 mil a year; and if they are, how is it they're well ahead of every other state side and surely their method of collecting this money would be so different to other sporting sides as to make the comparison almost worthless? Same with with the Saudi football teams, their 'earning power' would come from their ridiculously wealthy owners and is not an actual reflection of long-term financial stability or 'power'.

Redbacks would be SACA memberships I reckon.

I guess the other states have a degree of separation between the state association and the State team.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Obviously these teams' revenue is hurt because there are so many teams in the same metropolitan area. Most other leagues aren't like that. If Melbourne/Geelong had only one team it would be in the top 25 and with only two teams one would surely be in the top 50.

If Australian football operated under a similar system to many of the sports on the list - autonomous clubs with almost complete financial freedom and a promotion / relegation system, we’d no doubt have a few very big clubs in each city, and dozens and dozens of smaller clubs.

On a long enough timeline, success breeds support, which breeds size, which breeds success.

The artificial levellers in the AFL system stops the big dogs becoming giants, and the small clubs becoming absolute minnows.

 

[Sttew]

Only one NRL side - Brisbane Broncos @ 411.

But the one that raised my eyebrows is the South Australian Cricket team @ 315 (worth 30M). What the?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It'd be interesting to have a list of revenue associated with the actual sporting operations of the clubs.

From memory, one of the most profitable part of Man U is(was) their financial services divisions. People could go out and get a Man U home loan or a Man U credit card.