Yankees Hat

[กษัตริย์ 2]

Curious NOT confrontational .............. where did you get these facts.

 

 

Here's one soruce tell me the Redskins are the most profitable. http://uk.askmen.com/sports/business_200/2...s_business.html

 

Number 5

Houston Texans

Profit: $57.6 million

 

This NFL’s expansion franchise filled the void in Houston that the Oilers created when they bolted to become the Tennessee Oilers (and later the Titans). However, all’s not well in Houston; the city that once hosted a perennial playoff team is now home to a high-priced flop that compiled 56 losses in the five-year period between 2002 and 2006.

 

Despite their lack of success on the gridiron, the Texans are big winners in the profit-loss game. They had $222 million in revenue in 2005, according to Forbes, and an operating income of $57.6 million, the second-highest in the NFL. Player expenses totaled $100 million.

 

Gate receipts at Reliant Stadium -- home of the biggest naming rights deal in American pro sports -- brought in $44 million. This stadium is a real field of dreams for owner Robert McNair; premium seating alone is worth $40 million a year. Reliant Energy inked a 32-year, $300 million deal to put its name on the Texans’ stadium. Major corporate sponsors include giants such as Verizon Wireless, Miller Brewing, Siemens, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, and Ford Motor Company.

 

McNair’s $700 million investment to buy the team is certainly paying off: The Texans are now worth a little more than $1 billion.

Number 4

FC Bayern Munich

Profit: $62 million

 

With a proud history that includes four European Championship League titles and 20 championships in the German League, you could say FC Bayern Munich is a genuine powerhouse in Deutschland. The club is also a heavyweight from a financial standpoint; it’s worth $838 million -- about as much as the Indianapolis Colts.

 

In the 2005-06 season, FC Bayern Munich had $262 million in revenue and an operating income of $62 million, according to Forbes. That had to come as welcome news to corporate behemoth Adidas-Salomon AG, which owns the team. With a total of more than 132,000 members, Bayern Munich is the third-largest membership-based club in the world.

Number 3

Real Madrid

Profit: $83 million

 

On the field and on the balance sheets, Real Madrid is the real deal. The franchise is Spain’s most successful team, with a record 30 titles in La Liga and nine European Champions cups in the trophy case. This club, which was founded in 1902 with modest beginnings, is now worth $1.03 billion.

 

During the 2005-06 season, Real Madrid brought in $374 million and posted a profit of $83 million, according to Forbes. The list of corporate sponsors kicking cash toward the club includes Adidas, Audi, Telefonica, Kellogg, and Mini Babybel cheese. Real Madrid’s home field -- Estadio Santiago Bernabeu -- can hold 80,000 rabid soccer fans, and that adds to the club's bottom line.

 

 

Number 2

Manchester United

Profit: $92 million

 

Under U.S. ownership and with fans around the globe, Manchester United is more than just an English sensation. Marketing the club to an international fan base has made Man U the richest soccer team in the world.

 

Just one year before Manchester United won its 16th English league championship, the team made a total of $310 million with a profit of $92 million. The on-field success and very high value as a marketing commodity led Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer to buy the team in 2005. His hot property is now worth $1.4 billion.

 

Nike, Audi, Budweiser, Betfred, and Century Radio are sponsors of Man U, but, in November 2005, Vodafone ended its four-year, $71.5 million sponsorship deal. However, about five months later, AIG stepped up to become the next shirt sponsor, agreeing to a record, four-year, $112 million deal.

Number 1

Washington Redskins

Profit: $108.4 million

 

On the field, NFL teams aren’t exactly kneeling before the Redskins, but the team’s ability to make money is definitely worthy of admiration. Even though they haven’t won a Super Bowl since 1991, the Skins are NFL champs in financial terms.

 

In 2005, the team had revenue of $303 million and a $108.4 operating income, which led all the major pro sports teams. Daniel Snyder, who bought the franchise in 1999, has done more than OK on his investment; he paid $750 million for the Redskins and the club is now worth $1.4 billion.

 

Since purchasing the team, he has added 10,000 seats to FedEx Field, making that stadium the league’s largest. 800 of those seats are premium loge and cost about $400 per game, but the average ticket price is $68 and garnered $85 million at the gate in 2005. Parking is no bargain at FedEx either; it costs $35 per game to rest your heap. The team’s corporate sponsor list includes Siemens, E*Trade Bank, Sprint Nextel, Coca-Cola, and Bank of America.

[brotherbuzz 3,206]

Here's one soruce tell me the Redskins are the most profitable.

Cool link. I'd have thought Soccer would hold the top spot (2,3 and 4 ain't sneezable) and darned if I'd have guessed the Texans would be in there.

[bigdelta 46]

If you say so.

Is Google Tom demeaning to you in some way?Or would you prefer I use all the names spunk has called me?

Edited August 19, 2010 by LTGTR

[spike 236]

Is Google Tom demeaning to you in some way?Or would you prefer I use all the names spunk has called me?

 

em tae

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

Curious NOT confrontational .............. where did you get these facts.

 

This discussion could get complicated. The Yankees have been the most profitable franchise for their owners when all sources of profit are considered. The franchise cost a consortium headed by principal owner George Steinbrenner $8.8 million in 1973; it was valued at $1.6 billion by Forbes magazine in 2010 and some considered that a low estimate. Steinbrenner died earlier this year, but many feel if he had wanted to sell it, he would have gotten more than that for it - just like his heirs would if they choose to sell.

 

Right at this momemnt, the Yankees may or may not be the most valuable (highest net worth) of any professional franchise. Forbes listed them as the third most valuable in 2010, behind Manchester U ($1.8 3 billion) and the Dallas Cowboys ($1.65 billion). However, exchange rate factors distort the comparison with Man U. and the Cowboys' lead is so small it could be changed by one player's salary.

 

But when all factors (broadcast rights, sponsorship and sales of tickets and merchandise, plus the Yankees have their own cable TV channel) are considered over a long term, the Yankees are widely regarded as having been the most profitable (i.e., returning a profit to their owners) franchise in sports history.

 

In terms of success on the field, the Yankees over the years have dominated major league baseball to a degree not seen by any other team in any other sport.

 

Here's one soruce tell me the Redskins are the most profitable. [

 

That is in terms of operating income for one year (2005).

 

Evil

Edited August 19, 2010 by Evil Penevil

[กษัตริย์ 2]

That is in terms of operating income for one year (2005).

 

Evil

 

 

I just googled terms like 'which sports teams are the most profitable' and NY Yankees never came back as the answer.

 

 

Here's something more up to date (July 22 2010) for you. http://www.shelbystar.com/articles/panther...orbes-17th.html

 

 

CHARLOTTE -- According to Forbes Magazine, the Carolina Panthers are the 17th most profitable sports franchise in world with a value of $1.05 billion. The Forbes website lists the Panthers and owner Jerry Richardson as having a revenue of $238 million.

Manchester United, a soccer team in the English Premier League, is listed as the most profitable sports team at $1.83 billion and a revenue of $459 million.

 

 

The Dallas Cowboys are No. 2 on the list with a value of $1.65 billion and revenue of $280 million. The New York Yankees are third at $1.6 billion and a revenue of $441 million.

Other NFL teams finishing ahead of the Bucs include the Redskins (No. 4), Patriots (No. 5), Giants (No. 7), Jets (No. 9), Texans (No. 10), Eagles (No. 11), Bucs (12th), Bears (13th), Broncos (14th) and Ravens (15th).

 

Do you have any data we could see which backs up what you say about the Yankees being the most profitable?

[The Mook 105]

The Yankees may not be the most profitable team but the Yankees franchise includes YES (Yankees Entertainment & Sports) Network.

This is a huge money maker for the ownership of the franchise. HUGE. How these things (most profitable) are judged/ranked varies widely

and can also include other assets (like the stadium in which a team plays, if the ownership owns it rather than leasing.) One thing is

for certain: The Yanks make money, and lots of it, for the Steinbrenner Crew, etc.

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

Thanks guys

 

Cool link. I'd have thought Soccer would hold the top spot (2,3 and 4 ain't sneezable) and darned if I'd have guessed the Texans would be in there.

 

Interesting! I also thought it was football that would be most profitable due to their world wide appeal. But american sports marketing (regardless if you agree with their tactics!) are stil the best in the world. Just look at how the WWF (now WWE) was transformed.

[Seatown 0]

A recent article on Yahoo (Forbes) listed the Yankees as 3rd on a list of the world's most valuable teams.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-f...050values072210

 

1) Manchester United

2) Dallas Cowboys

3) New York Yankees

4) Washington Redskins

5) New England Patriots

6) Real Madrid

7) New York Giants

8) Arsenal

9) New York Jets

10) Houston Texans

Edited August 20, 2010 by Seatown

[CheshireTom 1,377]

But when all factors (broadcast rights, sponsorship and sales of tickets and merchandise, plus the Yankees have their own cable TV channel) are considered over a long term, the Yankees are widely regarded as having been the most profitable (i.e., returning a profit to their owners) franchise in sports history.

 

What's different from Man Utd's broadcast rights compared to the Yankees that diminishes them over the long term? They certainly have a much larger potential worldwide audience and like the Yankees they have their own TV channel, own their stadium, merchandise stores etc. After all, I'm not sure that a Yankees bar or shop would be a big draw in either Bangkok or Jakarta, nor could I see the locals queuing up to buy tickets to watch a Yankees game live. Obviously China is a huge potential market but potential and actual are two different things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

I think the wording here is important. Manure Football Club may be most valuable but what Evil said was the most profitable ; as the club was sold at a low price and making similar money as the others.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I think the wording here is important. Manure Football Club may be most valuable but what Evil said was the most profitable ; as the club was sold at a low price and making similar money as the others.

 

As was Man Utd during the same period Evil referrred to. It's only about 25 years since Cap'n Bob, the bouncing Czech, was offering a round 10m quid for the club. I'm sure you could make the Yankees, or Pattaya United for that matter, the most "profitable" simply by determining your own definition of profitable to fit. To show Manu in a good light, folk normally quote it's EBIT figures.

Edited August 20, 2010 by CheshireTom

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

I knew this was going to get complicated.

 

From the top – the New York Yankees have been involved in professional baseball for more than 100 years. If you added up all the money the franchise (not just the team) and all its various income streams has made (and lost) in those 100 years, it would be more than the corresponding total for any other major professional sports team in the world.

 

This is based on the fact that professional baseball was relatively big business in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s, when other professional team sports were minor operations inside and outside the U.S. Please see this article: Pay Ball: Estimating the Profitability of the New York Yankees 1915-1937.

 

Just to give one example: in the 1920s, a co-owner of the Yankees paid his partner $1.25 million to gain sole control of the team. In 1931, one of the owners of Manchester United paid GBP2,000 to take over his team.

 

But assume for a moment I’m not correct. If the Yankees aren’t the most profitable sports franchise in the past 100 years, which is? Anyone have any suggestions?

 

Here’s some data covering more recent times:

 

“When Steinbrenner led a group that bought the Yankees from CBS for $10 million in 1973, the team had just drawn under 1 million fans for the first time since World War II. Today, the Yankees regularly draw 4 million a season and are the centerpiece of a sports-media powerhouse. Yankee Global Enterprises, which includes Steinbrenner’s stakes in the team, YES Network and Yankees-related hospitality businesses, have a combined equity value of $3.4 billion.

 

That’s a 33,900% cumulative return from his initial investment.

 

Update: In response to inquiries about our calculations, Steinbrenner’s initial equity investment in the YES Network was not included. However our 33,900% cumulative return estimate, if anything, is conservative. That’s because the starting figure is not Steinbrenner’s original, personal investment in the Yankees – reported to be only $168,000 – but rather, the entire $10 million that his group, as a whole, paid for the team and parking lots surrounding Yankee Stadium in 1973.” Link

 

The Glazer family paid GBP800 million for Man U in 2005. It is now worth an estimated GBP1.19 billion. That's a handsome return, but so far nothing like what Steinbrenner made on his $168,000 initial stake in the Yankees.

 

Once again, it isn't a question about which sport franchise is the most profitable at this minute or which will be in the future, but which has been cumulatively most profitable over the past 100 years or so.

 

Evil

Edited August 22, 2010 by Evil Penevil

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I knew this was going to get complicated.

 

From the top – blah, blah, blah ..

 

So we've settled on the fact that they're probably the most profitable and successful sport's team in New York.

[spike 236]

So we've settled on the fact that they're probably the most profitable and successful sport's team in New York.

 

EP's post is the typical stuff from the average Yankee fan CT...the American baseball fan, who lives in the states, but outside of New York City, has learned over the years to ignore all things New York baseball...as they just rape and pillage other teams home grown prospects with the lure of big cash...and then proudly proclaim..."we're the best ewer" in wins, profits...etc

 

that's why the San Diego Padres are the BIG story in baseball these days....best record in the National League...and doing it with a very low payroll.

Edited August 22, 2010 by spike

[bigdelta 46]

It's"States",not states.I'm a typical baseball (Yankees) fan living outside the metropolitan area and a real baseball fan doesn't ignore all things New York-that's just your opinion.Yes,the Padres are having a great season but they are finally giving back to their long-suffering fans."Rape and pillage other team's prospects"-hilarious. Please explain just how they do that in this day and age?Are you aware there is a draft and they cannot just pay any prospect big money?Do the Yankees have the 25 best players in baseball?Learn baseball and get back to us here.

[joekicker 53]

Learn baseball and get back to us here. allright

 

Saved me keystrokes. True Yankees-haters are like soccer people. They sure aren't baseball fans.

 

Many years ago, I mean many, there was a great article in Harper's or (I think) Atlantic about how people could make a lot of money from baseball, and it used the Padres as the example of positively using mediocre players, knowing the fans would come anyhow. That was before Billy Bean showed how to be cheap AND win in Oakland of course, but that article on the parsimonious, immoral really, San Diegan owners always stuck in my mind.

 

.

[bigdelta 46]

Saved me keystrokes. True Yankees-haters are like soccer people. They sure aren't baseball fans.

 

Many years ago, I mean many, there was a great article in Harper's or (I think) Atlantic about how people could make a lot of money from baseball, and it used the Padres as the example of positively using mediocre players, knowing the fans would come anyhow. That was before Billy Bean showed how to be cheap AND win in Oakland of course, but that article on the parsimonious, immoral really, San Diegan owners always stuck in my mind.

 

.

I'm sure you would have been more eloquent than I was.BTW,you know I'm a big soccer fan also.

[joekicker 53]

I'm sure you would have been more eloquent than I was.BTW,you know I'm a big soccer fan also.

 

Yes, that wasn't very eloquent, was it? I meant, of course, the so-called soccer fans bragging about their lack of brain power to appreciate more than one sport, total, and flaunting it with incisive comments like "rounders sucks" and "armoured gridiron sissies" and the like. Can't for the life of me wrap my head around the idea that running down one sport is some sort of advertisement for the one you like.

 

.

Edited August 22, 2010 by joekicker

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

So we've settled on the fact that they're probably the most profitable and successful sport's team in New York.

 

No, we settled that the Yankees are the most profitable sports franchise in the world over the past 100 years. They may not be this year, they may not be in the next 100 years, but up to now, they have been.

 

But if it's not the Yankees who have been the most profitable, which franchise is?

 

Evil

 

EDIT IN: Change "team" to "franchise"

Edited August 22, 2010 by Evil Penevil

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

EP's post is the typical stuff from the average Yankee fan CT...the American baseball fan, who lives in the states, but outside of New York City, has learned over the years to ignore all things New York baseball...as they just rape and pillage other teams home grown prospects with the lure of big cash...and then proudly proclaim..."we're the best ewer" in wins, profits...etc

 

that's why the San Diego Padres are the BIG story in baseball these days....best record in the National League...and doing it with a very low payroll.

 

Through the years, the Yankees have won 27 World Series championships and 40 American League pennants. It's hard to argue with success. They are the defending Series champs and aren't doing badly this year.

 

The Padres are a fine team, but they have some catching up to do. They entered Major League Baseball in 1969 and have won two National League pennants but no World Series. The Yanks swept them 4-0 in the 1998 Series. It's interesting, though, that Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame owned the Padres from 1974 until his death in 1984.

 

Maybe if this topic is debated on Pattaya Talk in the year 2110, the Padres will have been the most successful franchise of the previous 100 years.

 

Evil

[CheshireTom 1,377]

No, we settled that the Yankees are the most profitable sports franchise in the world over the past 100 years. They may not be this year, they may not be in the next 100 years, but up to now, they have been.

 

But if it's not the Yankees who have been the most profitable, which franchise is?

 

Evil

 

EDIT IN: Change "team" to "franchise"

 

No arguments from me that the Yankees were possibly the most profitable in years gone by but the globalisation of sport has put an end to that. They have since been overtaken (according to Forbes), not only on a global but also on a national level. That contradicts your original claim that they were the most profitable by any measure. Obviously that's not the case. I'm quite sure that there were several baseball/American football teams which were bigger than any football team until fairly recently and I'm inclined to think that trend will continue. FWIW, most football folk say much the same about Real Madrid as apparently folk in the US do about the Yankees.

 

As for the Yankee's recent record ... as an outsider, so to speak, that seems to be a bit tarnished by the Clemens and Rodriguez issues.

Edited August 23, 2010 by CheshireTom

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

I'm sure you would have been more eloquent than I was.BTW,you know I'm a big soccer fan also.

 

No you're not. If you're a true fan , you'll call it F O O T B A L L

[bigdelta 46]

Baseball fans and especially Yankees fans don't relate Clemens and the team.And A-Rod is another story altogether,and his dalliance with PEDs will keep him from the HoF.But we sure like what he's doing for the team now,though currently on the 15 day DL.

[spike 236]

It's"States",not states.I'm a typical baseball (Yankees) fan living outside the metropolitan area and a real baseball fan doesn't ignore all things New York-that's just your opinion.Yes,the Padres are having a great season but they are finally giving back to their long-suffering fans."Rape and pillage other team's prospects"-hilarious. Please explain just how they do that in this day and age?Are you aware there is a draft and they cannot just pay any prospect big money?Do the Yankees have the 25 best players in baseball?Learn baseball and get back to us here.

 

sorry to burst yer bubble bunkee...the only city that calls A-Roid A-Rod is NYC....the rest of the country calls him cheater...steroid user/liar supreme...he will never enter the hall of fame while you and joe are alive...and his 600 homers mean nothing to any baseball purist...then again, you don't give a shite...as yer a yankee fan ....New York Yankee/steroidz...Clemens, Pettit, A-Roid...yer championships are tainted...and every baseball fan that loves the game knows that...

 

you just don't love the game.