Thursday, January 11, 2007
The $250 million man
David Beckham is coming to the L.A. Galaxy, and the TV in the deli just told me they're going to pay him an A-Rod-esque $250 million for five years. Actually, it dwarfs A-Rod and every other American sports contract when you consider the context: This is a league where a few years ago the max salary was $300,000 (with fewer than a dozen exceptions) and the top team payroll was $2.75 million. Beckham is a great draw with some good soccer left in him, and he could encourage other aging international stars to join MLS and improve both the play and the profile of the league. If anyone in the world is worth $250 million to MLS, Beckham is that man.
But is anyone worth that kind of cash? Even if you think of the long-term health of the league, how could the Beckham experiment possibly be worth the cost? Better attendance, TV revenues, quality of play? Here, in my mind, is the best case scenario, from the MLS point of view: A half dozen other international stars follow Beckham's lead, and attendance picks up. More soccer-specific stadiums are built. The European clubs take notice, setting up deals to make the MLS teams serve as farm clubs (I don't follow much soccer, but I believe this is already happening). With an improved talent pool in MLS, the U.S. national team improves dramatically and makes a run to the World Cup quarters or semis. Attendance, TV contracts, and quality of play continue to improve to the point that MLS can actually afford salaries of more top talent. U.S. team keeps improving and wins World Cup. Baseball, struggling to recover from the steroid era and the competition from MLS, decides to legalize all performance enhancing drugs, like in the SNL sketch about the All-Steroid Olympics. Baseball players juice up to the point where they can't move their arms or legs and look like Macy's parade floats. Soccer becomes the national pastime in the summer months.
Not bloody likely. Thoughts?
But is anyone worth that kind of cash? Even if you think of the long-term health of the league, how could the Beckham experiment possibly be worth the cost? Better attendance, TV revenues, quality of play? Here, in my mind, is the best case scenario, from the MLS point of view: A half dozen other international stars follow Beckham's lead, and attendance picks up. More soccer-specific stadiums are built. The European clubs take notice, setting up deals to make the MLS teams serve as farm clubs (I don't follow much soccer, but I believe this is already happening). With an improved talent pool in MLS, the U.S. national team improves dramatically and makes a run to the World Cup quarters or semis. Attendance, TV contracts, and quality of play continue to improve to the point that MLS can actually afford salaries of more top talent. U.S. team keeps improving and wins World Cup. Baseball, struggling to recover from the steroid era and the competition from MLS, decides to legalize all performance enhancing drugs, like in the SNL sketch about the All-Steroid Olympics. Baseball players juice up to the point where they can't move their arms or legs and look like Macy's parade floats. Soccer becomes the national pastime in the summer months.
Not bloody likely. Thoughts?
# posted by Budds @ 12:59 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I'm curious to see the specifics of the contract before I completely pass judgment. I just can't believe that he got a deal paying him $50 million a year for five years. That seems beyond my comprehension.
Will Beckham raise soccer's profile in the U.S.? Undoubtedly. But it is highly unlikely he raises soccer to a point where it is more comercially popular/successful than football, baseball, basketball, golf or NASCAR. I dig soccer and I hope I'm wrong here, but I just don't see it.
That said, if in the deal the MLS/Galaxy are paying, say, $10 mil a year and the rest is endorsement money paid by someone else, then the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
Will Beckham raise soccer's profile in the U.S.? Undoubtedly. But it is highly unlikely he raises soccer to a point where it is more comercially popular/successful than football, baseball, basketball, golf or NASCAR. I dig soccer and I hope I'm wrong here, but I just don't see it.
That said, if in the deal the MLS/Galaxy are paying, say, $10 mil a year and the rest is endorsement money paid by someone else, then the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
"Soccer is the sport of the future.... and it always will be." (badump ba!)
However the $250 million breaks down, there's no question that LA overpaid for Beckham. Becks had already hinted that he wanted to play in LA. He has a house in LALA land and a soccer school (what we call a camp in the states). He would have come for less.
There's definitely a market for soccer in the US. My sense is that most US soccer fans watch the European leagues (Fox Soccer Channel has great coverage and ESPN has been broadcasting Champion's League games since at least 1995) because the quality is better than the MLS. But, the competitiveness of MLS soccer has improved tremendously since the league's inception over 10 years ago. The MLS is now the premier soccer league in North America (i.e. better than Mexico). An international phenomenon like Becks will bring a lot of attention to a league that's ready for the spotlight. There's little doubt we'll be seeing more MLS highlights on SportsCenter.
The national passtime may be safe for now but the NHL (suffering from over-expansion resulting in a dilution of talent and the fact that hockey is a terrible TV sport) and the NBA (suffering from serious image problems since the Riley-era Knicks) should definitely watch their backs. Then again, maybe baseball should too. The World Cup final had approx. 12 million US viewers (260 million worldwide) on a sunny Sunday afternoon in July (when most people were probably at the beach) and the fifth and final game of this years' World Series had approx. 16 million viewers (behind Desperate Housewives, Dancing with the Stars, 3 different CSIs and 60 Minutes).
Post a Comment
However the $250 million breaks down, there's no question that LA overpaid for Beckham. Becks had already hinted that he wanted to play in LA. He has a house in LALA land and a soccer school (what we call a camp in the states). He would have come for less.
There's definitely a market for soccer in the US. My sense is that most US soccer fans watch the European leagues (Fox Soccer Channel has great coverage and ESPN has been broadcasting Champion's League games since at least 1995) because the quality is better than the MLS. But, the competitiveness of MLS soccer has improved tremendously since the league's inception over 10 years ago. The MLS is now the premier soccer league in North America (i.e. better than Mexico). An international phenomenon like Becks will bring a lot of attention to a league that's ready for the spotlight. There's little doubt we'll be seeing more MLS highlights on SportsCenter.
The national passtime may be safe for now but the NHL (suffering from over-expansion resulting in a dilution of talent and the fact that hockey is a terrible TV sport) and the NBA (suffering from serious image problems since the Riley-era Knicks) should definitely watch their backs. Then again, maybe baseball should too. The World Cup final had approx. 12 million US viewers (260 million worldwide) on a sunny Sunday afternoon in July (when most people were probably at the beach) and the fifth and final game of this years' World Series had approx. 16 million viewers (behind Desperate Housewives, Dancing with the Stars, 3 different CSIs and 60 Minutes).
<< Home
