Can Serie A (and possibly La Liga?) manage to stay competitive in the long-run?

Lets try to avoid the herp derp: I'm going to focus on Serie A, but I think a lot of this applies to La Liga (other than Barca and Madrid, obviously) as well

Here are some of the challenges Serie A faces:

1) High debt
2) Year-over-year Losses
3) Outdated Stadia
4) Widening Revenue gap vs EPL/Barcadrid
*5) Limited owner investment post-FFP?

*Remains to be seen

High debt and year over year losses are problems shared by other clubs outside of Serie A, including those in EPL. However, EPL has the competitive advantage of being the Premier Global English-Language league. In addition, the EPL TV rights deals have been growing at a rate that far exceeds those of Serie A.

The question is can Serie A keep up with EPL (and the fast growing Bundesliga) in the long run. If so, how?

Hope that they get rich owners. Also they need to focus on youth/scout cheap players and make them better. That can then possibly mean the teams can win stuff/do well and be competitive.

Why not?

Juve is already up and rolling, Milan has some young players and maybe will get an foreign investment, Roma has a long time project, Inter will recover + sides likes Lazio, Napoli and Fiorentina will always play at a good level.

Also, Udinese, Roma and possibly Inter are planning to build and will build new stadiums.

Think Serie A have to change their marketing strategy, make it more appealing somehow. Although doing it as a collective unit is very difficult unless the Italian FA imposes the regulations. Generating revenue is the hardest bit. I can't think what the Italian clubs can do better which will get more profit in. Building stadiums is something which gets mentioned a lot, however the problem teams are facing is filling the stadiums. Old/New doesn't matter. People for some reason ( or there may be ) don't tend to go to the stadiums to watch the match unless it's a big derby.

But as i said in the chat, I don't think you necessarily have to spend big to win a trophy. Dortmund are a great example. Having a good youth system is an advantage in modern football and most Italian clubs have a more than decent youth system. Inter more than anyone. Milan are on that path as well and that is really encouraging.

However the problem from that will be the wage structure. Will Serie A teams be able to offer the players the same amount of money like Madrid can ?

I think the whole money thing is overrated, I said it many many times and I have no choice to say it again.

If it came down totally and exclusively to who spends the most money, the tables would look different year in year out. The fact only now Atletico have established themselves are a example of this.

Overall, call me niave or whatever, but I think teams can still remain competitive with a functional youth system (which includes good coaching which is vastly underrated), smart budget transfers and good scouting in both areas.

Both of those things (Youth and smart transfers) I still believe many clubs have the edge over bigger, greater named clubs.

I dont think its luck lesser sides like Porto are able to churn out good results by finding young talents and teaching them well and finding questionable players with talent and unearthing it.

I think something that is underrated it the depth of talent. People dont realise talent is everywhere, you just have to find them.

The statistics speaks for itself. Serie A’s debt has went up to €2.6 billion, an increase of 12% on last year; the net loss for the whole of Italian professional football is €426 million, a deficit which has risen by €80 million (+23.1%). Only 19 clubs out of 107 report a profit. The total value of Italian football last season dropped by 1.2 %

Serie A currently attracts an average crowd of around 25000, with 48.1% of stadium capacity being filled. In comparison, the Bundesliga attracts 42,257 (86.1%) and the Premier League 35,753 (94.6%). Italian fans are just not turning out for their clubs, and the figure is also in decline (with a 7.8% drop this year in attendance). If anyone watches Serie A then im sure you know Arrigo Brovedani, he took the 500km trip to watch his beloved Udinese play Sampdoria in Italy’s Serie A. Arrigo Brovedani was the sole Udinese supporter at the game.




On the up side, many Serie A teams are building stadiums. Which means they get more revenue, also there has been a large emphasis on youth this season. If we manage to keep that up, then clubs dont need to break the bank for superstars, which in turn can cause financial problems. Most sides have got projects for the long term and they just need time for it to workout, then we can challenge in Europe for those CL spots

imo, I don’t think it’s as horrible as it seems. With the financial fair play things can change. Italian football has the players, it has the history, it has the flair, it has the clubs, it has the fans, it has the passion, it has the rivalries…it has got it all. With a few corrective improvements and guidance it can rise again and I am sure it will.

RealGunner wrote:

Will Serie A teams be able to offer the players the same amount of money like Madrid can ?

Nope. Which is why I think you have to give them a better reason than money to stay.

Hardly anyone want to leave home, so thats one advantage...meaning, yet again the mention of a youth system.

Add that to a club who show they have ambition to win....maybe even a great history.

Here's the problem:

EPL previous domestic TV deal: 1.773 billion pounds
EPL new domestic TV deal: 3.018 billion pounds

This is an increase of 70%.

Serie A previous domestic TV deal: 1.463 billion pounds
Serie A new domestic TV deal: 2.122 billion pounds

This is an increase of 45%.

EPL previous North American TV deal: $240 million dollars.
EPL new North American TV deal: $750 million dollars.

This is an increase of over 200%.

BeIn Sport new North American TV deal: $400 million dollars....For Serie A, La Liga, and Ligue 1 COMBINED
(Unfortunately I was unable to find figures on Serie A's old TV deal with FOX)

The revenue gap is growing - how can Serie A bridge this gap? One way for sure is building new Stadia to increase match-day revenue, but this comes with its own set of problems: As mentioned previously, Serie A clubs are already posting losses every year, and they have high levels of debt. Building Stadia would exacerbate both those problems in the short run. In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume that the costs of building a new Stadium would significantly limit investment in the squads themselves during the intermittent period from when construction begins to when the stadium is up and running and the club is experiencing the increased revenues.

So which way does Serie A go?

The Franchise wrote:I think the whole money thing is overrated, I said it many many times and I have no choice to say it again.

If it came down totally and exclusively to who spends the most money, the tables would look different year in year out. The fact only now Atletico have established themselves are a example of this.

Overall, call me niave or whatever, but I think teams can still remain competitive with a functional youth system (which includes good coaching which is vastly underrated), smart budget transfers and good scouting in both areas.

Both of those things (Youth and smart transfers) I still believe many clubs have the edge over bigger, greater named clubs.

I dont think its luck lesser sides like Porto are able to churn out good results by finding young talents and teaching them well and finding questionable players with talent and unearthing it.

I think something that is underrated it the depth of talent. People dont realise talent is everywhere, you just have to find them.

Agreed with everything. Porto are a great example. I think Udinese are in a away similar to porto in terms of finding the right talent, however they are lacking in other things such as holding on to the players for much longer like many Serie A clubs. Udinese few years back made it to the CL qualification. They had a fantastic team. But they ended up selling 70% of it. And replaced it with very inexperienced ones.

But back to the topic and replying to

Which is why I think you have to give them a better reason than money to stay.

Hardly anyone want to leave home, so thats one advantage...meaning, yet again the mention of a youth system.

Add that to a club who show they have ambition to win....maybe even a great history.

I complete agree with that too. Which is why i was really disappointed that Inter managed to sell/loan so many of their talented youth players. They have on of the best youth system in the world. Possibly can be the Dortmund of Serie A. Yet they are wasting away the potential.

not everyone is Totti but Inter are a club with history and class who can hold on to many players if they wanted

The stadium thing I never fully get.

I mean, spend a ton of money to build a new stadium...okay, but how many more fans will that bring..I dont know if it would be that much..I guess it would then maybe hold more events like the CL final which brings money too but yeah, I am not sure how many more fans it would really bring.

And even if it did bring some more fans, you cant actually spend any money now so they are going to come and watch the same medicore players they saw last year? I dont know.

I have always wanted to ask this question, Serie A has a strong fan base in Asia and south America. Why don't they try to exploit this market

The tickets are pretty cheap as well. like 13 euros for some games ( ES was showing me the other day )

It might be that they prefer to watch on TV ? but how can every single game be broadcasted on TV ?

If it's not that, then it could be that they can't afford to. That might be the logical reason ?

Frankly I don't see the problem with La Liga. I think in the next 10 years there's a strong chance of agreeing to a collective bargaining deal. Probably within the next 5 (last time I checked I think the main block was that Real and Barca's contract expired in 2014 so nothing could be agreed to until then iirc). I'm not sure how fair the initial deal will be, but once the entire league starts negotiating as one then the fortunes of all teams should increase quite dramatically.

The Franchise wrote:The stadium thing I never fully get.

I mean, spend a ton of money to build a new stadium...okay, but how many more fans will that bring..I dont know if it would be that much..I guess it would then maybe hold more events like the CL final which brings money too but yeah, I am not sure how many more fans it would really bring.

And even if it did bring some more fans, you cant actually spend any money now so they are going to come and watch the same medicore players they saw last year? I dont know.

Its not the stadium size increase that clubs want...its the luxury boxes, thats where the $$$$ is
(The increased ticket prices don't hurt either)

EL Patron wrote:I have always wanted to ask this question, Serie A has a strong fan base in Asia and south America. Why don't they try to exploit this market

??

The Franchise wrote:The stadium thing I never fully get.

I mean, spend a ton of money to build a new stadium...okay, but how many more fans will that bring..I dont know if it would be that much..I guess it would then maybe hold more events like the CL final which brings money too but yeah, I am not sure how many more fans it would really bring.

And even if it did bring some more fans, you cant actually spend any money now so they are going to come and watch the same medicore players they saw last year? I dont know.

Good point there.

Juve started out with a relativley small stadium that fit 40k fans, they started out small and will expand if needed. So far that has worked out well for them. Unlike the San Siro which is emptier than an M. Night Shymalan movie, i think that starting out small and slowly is expanding is the best bet to try and get the fans to attend

Still that doesn't cure the whole problem, still need another way to fill those stadiums

Swanhends wrote:

The Franchise wrote:The stadium thing I never fully get.

I mean, spend a ton of money to build a new stadium...okay, but how many more fans will that bring..I dont know if it would be that much..I guess it would then maybe hold more events like the CL final which brings money too but yeah, I am not sure how many more fans it would really bring.

And even if it did bring some more fans, you cant actually spend any money now so they are going to come and watch the same medicore players they saw last year? I dont know.

Its not the stadium size increase that clubs want...its the luxury boxes, thats where the $$$$ is
(The increased ticket prices don't hurt either)

I see.

Those luxary boxes are for who though? Whoever they are, again, are they going to want to come watch medicority? I am sure in many cases the answer is still yes, but I dont think anyone is going to come see many clubs, boxes or not.

Overall, it seems like quite a short term risk for perhaps a reward which never comes, or at least not to the extent they might think.

Any real life examples of this to draw conclusions from?

The Franchise wrote:

Swanhends wrote:

The Franchise wrote:The stadium thing I never fully get.

I mean, spend a ton of money to build a new stadium...okay, but how many more fans will that bring..I dont know if it would be that much..I guess it would then maybe hold more events like the CL final which brings money too but yeah, I am not sure how many more fans it would really bring.

And even if it did bring some more fans, you cant actually spend any money now so they are going to come and watch the same medicore players they saw last year? I dont know.

Its not the stadium size increase that clubs want...its the luxury boxes, thats where the $$$$ is
(The increased ticket prices don't hurt either)

I see.

Those luxary boxes are for who though? Whoever they are, again, are they going to want to come watch medicority? I am sure in many cases the answer is still yes, but I dont think anyone is going to come see many clubs, boxes or not.

Overall, it seems like quite a short term risk for perhaps a reward which never comes, or at least not to the extent they might think.

Any real life examples of this to draw conclusions from?

I am certain Swiss Ramble wrote something that mentioned what huge difference luxury suites make to the match-day revenue a stadium generates, but I can't find it at the moment, I'm still looking

While I look, here's something else: (From SwissRamble)

SwissRamble wrote:"Ten years ago the total revenue of clubs in Serie A of €0.9 billion was only just behind the Premier League’s €1.1 billion and practically double the other major leagues (Bundesliga, La Liga and Ligue 1), who all earned around €0.5 billion. Last year, the picture looked very different with the Premier League’s revenue surging to €2.4 billion, while the Bundesliga and La Liga had both caught up with Serie A at €1.5 billion with Ligue 1 trailing at €1.2 billion."

Found it:

SwissRamble wrote:One glaring weakness for Inter is match day revenue, which is very low at €33 million, down from €39 million the previous year, largely due to a reduction in Champions League gate receipts from €17 million to €7 million.

Although this is the highest in Italy, it is tiny compared to leading clubs abroad. This is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison with Manchester United and Arsenal, who earn €126 million and €108 million respectively. This works out to around €4 million revenue a match, which is over three times as much as Inter (€1.3 million), even though their stadiums are smaller.

Inter’s average attendance of 58,000 in 2010/11 is impressive (again the highest in Italy) and was actually the eighth best in Europe, but San Siro suffers from having hardly any premium seats or corporate boxes, which are the money spinners elsewhere.

This is why Inter have been exploring opportunities for moving to a new stadium that could maximise their revenue earning potential, including naming rights, as explained by Paolillo, “In Europe the stadium makes money seven days out of seven.” Not only that, but Inter have to pay €4.3 million rent a year to the local council, who own the stadium.

Here is SwissRamble on general effect Stadia can have on revenue:

SwissRamble wrote:In terms of match day revenue, here are a number of ways of increasing revenue, the best of which is to be successful, which should result in more games played, due to cup runs, Champions League, etc. A somewhat less palatable tool has been for clubs to raise ticket prices, though the current economic climate means that this has slowed right down this season with prices frozen at Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United. Championship side Derby County has even introduced demand based pricing services for single match tickets for the 2012/13 season.

Of course, a real quantum leap in match day revenue can only be achieved via stadium expansion or building a new stadium. This can be very clearly seen with Arsenal’s revenue rising by nearly £50 million a season since they moved from Highbury to the Emirates. It’s not just the higher capacity, but also many more premium customers and indeed higher prices. The Glazers’ willingness to raise ticket prices plus the completion of the upper quadrants at Old Trafford (and, yes, more of the “prawn sandwich” brigade) has also helped Manchester United to substantially increase their match day revenue to well over £100 million.

This has resulted in United and Arsenal both earning much more than their peers per game: £3.7 million and £3.3 million compared to Chelsea £2.5 million, Tottenham £1.6 million and Liverpool £1.5 million. This explains why all of those clubs have been looking at stadium moves for some time, though their struggles have highlighted how difficult this is. On the bright side, if they found the right site, any costs associated with a move could be excluded for FFP – though there would then be the small matter of actually finding the money to finance the project.

And of course, I haven't even mentioned the Bundesliga yet...Which has a rapidly rising TV deal, world-class stadia, and clubs with little to no debt

All the things Serie A needs (and will have to pay heavily for), the Bundesliga already has.

Looking at that chart it's obvious that what they need to exploit the most is foreign tv revenues, until the new deal Serie A was actually doing better in the local deal than the EPL.

Intresting stuff, even to me, someone who hates all things numbers.

Where I am right now is, it is clear with the boxes, big disadvantage. No question.

But the question still remains if people will come to the boxes to watch Inter. I think most probably yes.

But what about other clubs? Thats im not too sure of.

Swanhends wrote:Here's the problem:

EPL previous domestic TV deal: 1.773 billion pounds
EPL new domestic TV deal: 3.018 billion pounds

This is an increase of 70%.

Serie A previous domestic TV deal: 1.463 billion pounds
Serie A new domestic TV deal: 2.122 billion pounds

This is an increase of 45%.

EPL previous North American TV deal: $240 million dollars.
EPL new North American TV deal: $750 million dollars.

This is an increase of over 200%.

BeIn Sport new North American TV deal: $400 million dollars....For Serie A, La Liga, and Ligue 1 COMBINED
(Unfortunately I was unable to find figures on Serie A's old TV deal with FOX)

The revenue gap is growing - how can Serie A bridge this gap? One way for sure is building new Stadia to increase match-day revenue, but this comes with its own set of problems: As mentioned previously, Serie A clubs are already posting losses every year, and they have high levels of debt. Building Stadia would exacerbate both those problems in the short run. In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume that the costs of building a new Stadium would significantly limit investment in the squads themselves during the intermittent period from when construction begins to when the stadium is up and running and the club is experiencing the increased revenues.

So which way does Serie A go?

I think it's extremely hard to reach the level of marketing of the Premier League or BarcaMadrid. The biggest advantage PL has as mentioned before is the Language. It's much easier to broad cast a Sky sports coverage in Asia without having to spend extra. But saying that, it doesn't mean it's an absolute advantage. I mean Sky sports also show La Liga in English. People watch it and that's the 2nd point

Star attraction is huge. Juventus was extremely popular world wide when they had Zidane and Del piero in the same team. When Zidane Moved to Madrid, and they signed Ronaldo/Beckham/Figo. Madrid managed to steal the market worldwide. Middle east, it was all madrid. Even in the UK we started to get more coverage of La liga than before.

BarcaMadrid have that advantage over everyone. Messi and Ronaldo attracts fans. Fans = revenue.
PL might not have Messi/Ronaldo but they can equally attract from the other players. It doesn't necessarily means Ki is better than Marchisio. But South korea tunes in every week to watch Swansea for him. There is demand for Swansea matches because of him. And Swansea knows how to exploit that. They are going to Korea this summer for a friendly. Just because of one player. They will manage to get millions of the revenue they gain cause of him.

Serie A needs to learn how to do exactly that. They have done it in the past. I started following Roma when they had Totti, Cassano, Batistuta. Not just me, but many people in England because there was demand for Serie A. Serie A was famous in France because world cup winners played there. Czech republic demanded Serie A because of Nedved. Even if we go back 6 years ago. Kaka was the heartbeat of football. He attracted fans from everywhere and Milan knew that and exploited it. Milan still is a pretty famous club in the middle east and Brazil

It's weird all that is gone. Maybe because there are better star attraction elsewhere. But it's hard to imagine why Serie A are holding back so much now compared to in the past ?

Juventus ended the season unbeaten last year and, despite showing signs of weakness in this campaign, continue to be the best Serie A team this season.

Milan have shown this season that they are building a team capable of challenging for the Scudetto again next year, while Inter were in the' title race earlier in the season.

These two giants will always remain a vitall part of Italian football but are coming under increasing pressure to remain ahead of the chasing pack. Currently in the midst of a transitional period, the Milanese clubs are experiencing some good times and bad times in their cycles of success but will ultimately return to being protagonists sooner rather than later.

Napoli have already re-emerged as a force in Italy, reguarly challeenging for a place in the top three despite falling short in the title race. As a result of the UEFA co-efficient rankings, Italy has seen its number of Champions League participants reduced to three, but the Partenopei are on the path to becoming an elite team.

In addition, foundations that are being laid for the future at the likes of Fiorentina, Roma and Lazio, who are all currently involved in a scramble to secure their reservations at Europe’s top table next season.

The Viola are constructing a technically gifted squad who have the ability to play some of the best football in Italy, while Roma have a group of talented players who surely warrant a place higher up the league table.

This can only be positive for the Italian game. However, because many of these teams lack consistency in a league that has its fair share of ups and downs, there is always a possibility of a surprise package emerging

Udinese and coach Francesco Guidolin should be lauded for their ability to defy the odds and finish amongst the best in the peninsula. The club’s transfer policy sees them split with their best players every summer, yet they still find a way to deliver (despite some fans displeasure to the club )

However, the disadvantage lies in their inability to challenge in Europe. With places in the Champions League already at a premium, Serie A simply can’t afford to have weak representatives who will face elimination in either the qualifying or early rounds.

So, is it better for the league in general to have a core of three to four clubs that have strength in depth and are built to compete at a European level? Or is the league more interesting with up to six or seven clubs capable of fighting for a limited number of European spots? There are arguments that support both theories, and more answers are likely to arrive following this next month

The Franchise wrote:Intresting stuff, even to me, someone who hates all things numbers.

Where I am right now is, it is clear with the boxes, big disadvantage. No question.

But the question still remains if people will come to the boxes to watch Inter. I think most probably yes.

But what about other clubs? Thats im not too sure of.

Agreed, it's a strategy for big clubs but not smaller ones. Juve, Roma, Inter and Milan could pull it off, but everyone else would be well advised to not rely on this method.

Hopefully Roma will have their stadium done in 3-4 years and add some needed enthusiasm. No doubt that a bigger team getting a new stadia can boost morale like with Juve, it defined a new era, even though a lot of things must come together ofc.