Charter Flights and Class Warfare

[SanBartG]

A sentence like that is one that pops up in water cooler talk when your not really going too deep into a subject and your coworker say something that on the surface sounds correct and you just give a weak 'yeah' in agreement and moves on. Then when you get back to your desk and you begin to dissect the conversation you just had and you realize, wow, there is no way that statement could encompass all aspects of a the topic; I need to find my co-worker and explain to him that what he just said was a gross oversimplification likely based on anecdotal evidence. And when you do explain to him that there are complex, nuanced situations which more often then not supersede his folksy truism, he says, this is why everyone in our office hates you.

that said, here I go:

If winning meant more profit, why doesn't every team just aim to win? Because actively aiming to win cost money. Spending more money, means making less profit. Good players cost more to buy and cost more in salary. So you probably say to yourself, well let me just scout players before their talent is noticed and they get expensive. To that I say, you're not the only one that had this idea. Your competing with other teams scouts. So either you need better scouts (read: more money) or you need to be lucky (read: out of your control). So winning is either out of your control, or cost money. If those are your options how does winning mean more profit? I suppose you assume it comes from prizes and merchandise sales from being labeled a winner. But if there is even 1 marginal dollar to be made by winning rather then not winning wouldn't you spend it on something to help you win? I mean if you want to win you would, or else your competition will (especially since your costs are sunk so not winning now means no prize which really hurts). But what if your competition is a sovereign wealth fund that doesn't care about marginal cost but rather treats the whole thing as cross advertising and good will expenses for the nation (read: Qatar). How do you compete with someone who is willing to go into the red to win? What if there is more then one of these guys in your league? It becomes an arms race where the top teams are spending to win for the sake of winning. How is this more profitable then hanging around spending near league minimum, collecting a little merchandise money occasionally but bringing in a lot of TV money? Little work to stay relevant, with a chance to catch lighting in a bottle à la Leicester (or almost the Mets). Sounds like a business model that makes a good profit most years, with a cheap up side call attached.

The assertion that owners do not care about the "sporting success" of their clubs because they only make money through "thrift" just doesn't hold up. Does anyone really believe owners don't care if they win or lose? or believe they will make more money when they are not successful? No. My statement may have been easy, lazy, incomplete... whatever. But it doesn't make it wrong.

If derek_villa's argument is right, then all teams should spend as little as possible. Period. That's not happening. Different teams calculate their ROI differently and for some trying to buy a winning club just doesn't make sense. But for others, they clearly believe the investment will pay off on the field and for the bottom line at some point in the future.

If you look at the list of the most valuable clubs in the world (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...e-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2017/amp/). some of the teams listed are some of the big spenders. Juve, Real Madrid, Manchester U and Manchester City, etc. they may not be the biggest spenders and I don't know how they stack up against each other but clearly there is a positive correlation between expenditure and profit. That doesn't mean spending for its own sake will lead to winning or profit. Look at Inter the last few years. They spent a lot more with the expectation of winning and presumably more profit but it was clearly poorly spent. But spending more money wisely can lead to a healthier bottom line in the long run.

Will some spend insane amounts and take the loss to benefit other ventures? Sure. But I think they are the exception, not the rule.