Dude lta not just believe every no thrown by the franchises...NONE of the nos are audited and there is no idea on whether these are positive operating margins or there are investments being depreciated
@deepakc Investments are higher in ISL than I league, so losses appear higher as well. With the central sponsorship pool being distributed in season two, expect the loss margins to get narrowed down. Besides, I league was a failure, not only cause it was financially unviable.
Another article which explains that you dont need to have a league that helps you to make money in order to make it viable.
So here's the tough question. Should the owners really expect a profit? That's the grey area. By all means, aim as high as you can, but coping with a manageable loss is a more realistic scenario. What's manageable, of course, differs markedly from club to club.
Buying into professional sport is never a good idea if you're expecting to make money. That applies to every sport, everywhere in the world. Just ask CFG, which has lost hundreds of millions of dollars since taking over Manchester City seven years ago. At a guess, I'd say only 10 per cent of all clubs in all sports make a profit. Why would the A-League be any different? Take a look at the AFL. Last year, combined losses were about $100 million. GWS Giants managed to lose money despite receiving more than $20 million in grants. It might be argued that without the best TV deal in Australian sport – about $1.2 billion – the AFL would be worse off than the A-League.
My feeling is the A-League will never be profitable, but it can be viable. With licences now worth between $5 million and $30 million, the business has grown. Yes, it makes sense to try and reduce losses, but in a country of 25 million people and in a market divided by five major professional sports, there's no quick fix. What we can say is both sides would be better served by a spirit of co-operation.
If anything this article cries out for supporter based clubs and institutional clubs in top league...there is no guarantee when the corporate appetite for yearly losses will dry up and clubs shut down one fine day. If you go by ALL THE ARTICLES on losses of franchises in top leagues being circulated in the past few days the only logical conclusion is that NO MORE than 25% of clubs in domestic league should be circus franchises just to ensure sustainability. That means Ina 10 team top tier (as India doesn't have enough talent pool according to Indian football premier expert Mr Sunder Raman) there should be 2 circus franchises, maybe 6 supporter based clubs & 2 institutional clubs .
@deepakc Franchisee model suits India.... The attachment to franchisees and love for these teams is just a matter of time. We have seen that with KBFC, Chennaiyin,FCG..to some extent in FCPC as well...Even BFC is basically a franchisee. Just because it doesnt plays in ISL, ISL haters find it very hard to name it as a "circus" franchisee.
Football “Franchises” – Right or Wrong?
MADE IN AMERICA
This all may come across as a criticism of the current American model of soccer. It isn’t meant to be. Indeed, if the MLS had tried to replicate the way English football was born, it would have probably died an unlamanted death a long time ago.
If you’re looking to establish a major football league in a country that hasn’t previously been known for its love of the game the franchise method is, at the moment, quite possibly the best way to go about it, as both the States and Australia’s A League are currently showing. It also makes more sense to implement a system that’s closer to what the public are used to with other sports.
And as the game grows and the clubs develop their own history, rivalries and even places in the community then that attachment to an area grows – just look at the current situation with DC United.
The MLS side are having issues over their stadium, raising the spectre that one of the MLS’ best-known teams could be forced to move, or franchised to another city. DC United fans,along with bloggers, are campaigning to keep the club in the capital.
Why try and be dependent on a fickle business man when you have successful supporter based clubs....eg I will still put by faith in SLFC & Aizawal over Neufc in the longbrun although Neufc is spending more...franchises can complement supporter based clubs and league by taking the game to new reigons but ofcourse in India we prefer to have them replace successful clubs just bcoz IMG shows some fancy PPT
Comments
Another article which explains that you dont need to have a league that helps you to make money in order to make it viable.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/aleague-can-be-viable-if-not-actually-profitable-20150402-1mdwfy.html
Football “Franchises” – Right or Wrong?
MADE IN AMERICA
This all may come across as a criticism of the current American model of soccer. It isn’t meant to be. Indeed, if the MLS had tried to replicate the way English football was born, it would have probably died an unlamanted death a long time ago.
If you’re looking to establish a major football league in a country that hasn’t previously been known for its love of the game the franchise method is, at the moment, quite possibly the best way to go about it, as both the States and Australia’s A League are currently showing. It also makes more sense to implement a system that’s closer to what the public are used to with other sports.
And as the game grows and the clubs develop their own history, rivalries and even places in the community then that attachment to an area grows – just look at the current situation with DC United.
The MLS side are having issues over their stadium, raising the spectre that one of the MLS’ best-known teams could be forced to move, or franchised to another city. DC United fans,along with bloggers, are campaigning to keep the club in the capital.
http://soccerlens.com/football-franchises-right-or-wrong/30749/