Finance

[MrE]

A question I have just asked in another thread has prompted me to ask this

Does the club have any rights to get sponsorship, or do deals away from the MLS (in other words as a stand alone business).
I believe the shirt deals are done / imposed by the league
I believe the league does the TV deal (as per EPL)
I believe the players are owned by the league

What stand alone rights as a business does the club have ?

This is a genuine what rights question, not meant to be confused with how the league operating as a whole is stronger than each part. I just wonder what potential there is for a club to generate income in its own right ?

 

[CP_Scouse]

I think its just with renting out rights. Lets say i wanna make nycfc gloves. I would have to pay them
Royalties. The mls as a whole shoukd give more rights to the clubs instead to itself

 

[MikeDatTiger]

Ok.

There are league wide sponsorships, but the club can have its own sponsors. This includes shirt sponsors. So for example, Etihad is the league wide airline, but Portland is free to have Air Alaska on its shirt. That's because it's a separate club with a separate deal. Related, Colorado, not MLS, is suing Vaio for payments not made for their new shirt sponsors. So the shirt sponsor is a team, not MLS wide deal.

Apparel and licensing is all MLS done. All the trademarks and copyrights are assets of an MLS holding company which makes deals on behalf of all clubs. This is done to make sure some of the smaller clubs get access to gear companies, otherwise the Crew for example wouldn't be able to get into the door. the league wide hass bigger bargaining power and can help out the smaller teams.

TV. There are national deals, which the league does. There are also local deals, for your local regional provider that ends up covering most games. the local deals are all done at the discretion of the club. If you had MLS live for example, you noted that while say Houston had no games blacked out, Columbus did black out all of its games in its area. That difference is because Columbus and its deal with local TV was different than Houston's deal.

Players are all owned by the league and allocated in a system designed to be so byztantine that no one really knows how it works and no one can quite call BS when the rules appear to suddenly change.

 

[MrE]

Ok.

There are league wide sponsorships, but the club can have its own sponsors. This includes shirt sponsors. So for example, Etihad is the league wide airline, but Portland is free to have Air Alaska on its shirt. That's because it's a separate club with a separate deal. Related, Colorado, not MLS, is suing Vaio for payments not made for their new shirt sponsors. So the shirt sponsor is a team, not MLS wide deal.

Apparel and licensing is all MLS done. All the trademarks and copyrights are assets of an MLS holding company which makes deals on behalf of all clubs. This is done to make sure some of the smaller clubs get access to gear companies, otherwise the Crew for example wouldn't be able to get into the door. the league wide hass bigger bargaining power and can help out the smaller teams.

TV. There are national deals, which the league does. There are also local deals, for your local regional provider that ends up covering most games. the local deals are all done at the discretion of the club. If you had MLS live for example, you noted that while say Houston had no games blacked out, Columbus did black out all of its games in its area. That difference is because Columbus and its deal with local TV was different than Houston's deal.

Players are all owned by the league and allocated in a system designed to be so byztantine that no one really knows how it works and no one can quite call BS when the rules appear to suddenly change.

Thanks for your reply,
So the next question is if you owned the club, what do you think would be the best money generating schemes, for which you get to keep 100 percent of the revenue ?

 

[413Blue]

As far as the Shirt sponsors go, the league get's 200k/yr and the Club keeps the rest.

 

[MagnusPax]

I would answer and let you know that no one but MLS owns the clubs, ManCity and yankees have merely invested in a league and are allowed to run the club in NYC. But you blocked me so this for anyone else interested in reading.

 

[413Blue]

I would answer and let you know that no one but MLS owns the clubs, ManCity and yankees have merely invested in a league and are allowed to run the club in NYC. But you blocked me so this for anyone else interested in reading.

Except for that being almost completely false, it is accurate.

 

[MagnusPax]

Except for that being almost completely false, it is accurate.

Please correct my errors.

 

[MrE]

Please correct my errors.

I do wish someone with more knowledge than Magnus can / would. There are many types of fan on every forum but the negativity this chap portrays against all things mcfc or city group related often make many of us city fans ( both group and mcfc) wonder why he is here. If I was a bookmaker I would give good odds on a infiltrating red bulls fan

 

[sbrylski]

How do you perceive what he said to be anti-CFG?

I share the same understanding as MagnusPax. MLS owns all assets - player contracts, teams, intellectual property, etc. CFG and the Yankees made an investment in the league in conjunction with an operating agreement that gives them certain managerial rights over all things NYCFC, and certain rights to both league and NYCFC-specific profit streams. All CFG and the Yankees actually "own" are these rights.

 

[413Blue]

CFG/NYY own 100% of New York City FC. They also own a share (presumably 1/22) of MLS LLC and have an agreement with MLS LLC following the leagues rules, procedures etc.
Yes, MLS LLC owns all player contracts among other things. Beyond that, it's complicated and much of the further details are speculation. I don't really feel like writing an in-depth explanation because I would have to gather all of the info i've learned as an MLS supporter over the last ~18 years. You would be surprised to realize how MLS is not so much "single-entity" as the term would make you think. I do apologize to MagnusPax, as my previous remark was a*holish, crappy day at work.

 

[MagnusPax]

First sentence is not correct. CFG/NYY only own 1/22 of MLS and as co-owners of the league they have a vote and get revenues from the league. The league has granted them the NYC market and the investor-operator control of the NYCFC franchise. MLS even owns the copyrights and trademarks on the name of NYCFC.

Its the same for all MLS clubs. Its important to see this, because its not just CFG investing in NYC but in the entire league. We are seeing those connections with CFG's affiliate corporations like Eithiad airlines getting involved with MLS as a whole league.

PS I am not or nor have ever been a Red Bulls fan. But I have been to MetroStar games.
PPS I appreciate 413Blue's comments. My opinion is mine gained from experience. I'll try to find actual evidence to back up my opinion.

 

[413Blue]

CFG/NYY own the entity that is NYCFC. MLS LLC owns the logo.