Top 100 richest...who own Sports team
-
Here are the MLS owners.....but just FYI.....this soccer league is not considered one of the North American "Major Leagues"...there are just the Big Four for now. (maybe someday in the future it will achieve what is considered ""major" status)
I see there is one here that fits what you say: the New York city Club.....who are partners in it with the owner of the New York Yankees.
I also see where several NFL owners own shares in some of these teams:
Arthur Blank, owns the Atlanta Falcons
Paul Allen, owner of the Seahawks
Robert Kraft owns the Patriots
Clark Hunt owns the Chiefs
Kroenke owns the Rams.
Here are the MLS owners.....but just FYI.....this soccer league is not considered one of the North American "Major Leagues"...there are just the Big Four for now. (maybe someday in the future it will achieve what is considered ""major" status)
I see there is one here that fits what you say: the New York city Club.....who are partners in it with the owner of the New York Yankees.
I also see where several NFL owners own shares in some of these teams:
Arthur Blank, owns the Atlanta Falcons
Paul Allen, owner of the Seahawks
Robert Kraft owns the Patriots
Clark Hunt owns the Chiefs
Kroenke owns the Rams.
I have heard that MLS is a minor league.
I think that NFL owners having MLS teams has to do with the soccer teams being less expensive to maintain and if you already have the facilities for an NFL team, well, a soccer team needs less facilities overall (there's way less people in a soccer team).
My guess is that arabs and asiatics get into european soccer because it is a sport already popular in their countries, so it is an easy way to become popular. Also, economically I'd bet that european teams in some countries have more problems economically than in the US (at least in Spain) and soccer teams are not as expensive.
-
There was a big discussion about this very subject this morning on Mike and Mike. Their contention is that some of these Billionaires purchase sports teams because, even though they have big money....that alone does not bring them fame and adulation....whereas being the owner of a sports franchise does just that for many.
And I think there is some truth in that. Who ever heard of Jimmy Haslam before he bought the Browns? Well, his brother is governor of Tenn....which brought his brother fame. Maybe Jimmy wanted some of that.
The biggest publicity seeker of them all is Jerry Jones. In fact, this arrogant asswipe went so far as to call himself the "ranking" owner in the NFL. People on the radio were trying to figure out what that meant. While his team may be the most valuable, he is far from the wealthiest. See the list above. A half dozen other owners are worth more. He certainly is NOT the longest tenured. Think of Families like the Maras, Rooneys, Halas/McCaskey, Mike Brown etc. Much longer tenured. HE calls himself the "ranking" owner because in his own arrogant mind he thinks he is the most important/influential owner, apparently. Well...I am not sure the other owners go along with that. He is in this tussle with Arthur Blank over Roger Goodell's contract...and he is going to lose. He is seen as a guy who is all in favor of things like hammering the Pats for their indiscretions, and having Goodell suspend players for alleged misbehavior.......until and unless it is one of his players who get disciplined. Then he gets all butthurt over it. In other words, he is a hypocrite.
And, in one sense, maybe he should be. He is in that tussle with Blank....but did you see what happened when Blank's Falcons met the Cowboys on Sunday....the Falcons hammered the Cowboys.
SWEET!
-
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a millionaire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
-
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a millionaire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a milliona ire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
Salary caps a good necessary "evil" in sports, without them you end up with the NY YANKEE$.
ALSO of the 32 NFL teams 17 show ownership after 2000 and only 5 excluding GB before 1990......new money or at least new financing.
Rich people have always owned sports teams, race horses, sailing ships why? Because they are the only ones that can.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a millionaire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a millionaire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
The ONLY NFL team that has that distinction is the Green Bay Packers. In fact, the league now has a rule against having a community owned franchise. The NFL wants only greedy rich people with profit motivation to own their teams. Its a fact. (and FYI...the salary cap is instituted to guarantee that each of these greedy owners makes a lot of money. But...on the other hand, most fans feel that is good nevertheless because it promotes parity....and avoids the situation just as you state: that only the wealthy, big market teams take all the good players and all the titles.
But, here is an interesting phenomena: The one league that does NOT have a salary cap is baseball. Yet, it is baseball that has had about the most parity of any of the sports.
I would have to check on whether any of the other teams in the other leagues are essentially "community owned"....but I doubt that they are.
-
I found interesting when I saw on your first post that GB was owned by the fans, which I already knew, BUT that it also was founded in 1923... Osasuna was founded in 1920, lol.
In Spanish League, anyway, I just recall Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and Osasuna. Maybe there are more, but those ones have been a constant mention at least in Primera Division.
-
I found interesting when I saw on your first post that GB was owned by the fans, which I already knew, BUT that it also was founded in 1923... Osasuna was founded in 1920, lol.
In Spanish League, anyway, I just recall Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and Osasuna. Maybe there are more, but those ones have been a constant mention at least in Primera Division.
I found interesting when I saw on your first post that GB was owned by the fans, which I already knew, BUT that it also was founded in 1923... Osasuna was founded in 1920, lol.
In Spanish League, anyway, I just recall Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and Osasuna. Maybe there are more, but those ones have been a constant mention at least in Primera Division.
The Packers actually go back further than 1923. They were a "club" team prior to that for years. The NFL formed in 1920. The Packers joined a year later in 1921. (only the Bears and the Cardinals are original 1920 current NFL teams). That 1923 date may have been when there was some corporate reorganization or something.)
-
Curious question: What ever happened to Ted Turner?
At one time he owned the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta NHL team....that eventually moved to Winnipeg. He must have moved on from owning sports teams.
-
Curious question: What ever happened to Ted Turner?
At one time he owned the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta NHL team....that eventually moved to Winnipeg. He must have moved on from owning sports teams.
Curious question: What ever happened to Ted Turner?
At one time he owned the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta NHL team....that eventually moved to Winnipeg. He must have moved on from owning sports teams.
He's still around but gone for a decade (+/-) from the Braves, strange dude but I'm forever thankful for TCM which I'm watching now.
-
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a millionaire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
The ONLY NFL team that has that distinction is the Green Bay Packers. In fact, the league now has a rule against having a community owned franchise. The NFL wants only greedy rich people with profit motivation to own their teams. Its a fact. (and FYI...the salary cap is instituted to guarantee that each of these greedy owners makes a lot of money. But...on the other hand, most fans feel that is good nevertheless because it promotes parity....and avoids the situation just as you state: that only the wealthy, big market teams take all the good players and all the titles.
But, here is an interesting phenomena: The one league that does NOT have a salary cap is baseball. Yet, it is baseball that has had about the most parity of any of the sports.
I would have to check on whether any of the other teams in the other leagues are essentially "community owned"....but I doubt that they are.
The ONLY NFL team that has that distinction is the Green Bay Packers. In fact, the league now has a rule against having a community owned franchise. The NFL wants only greedy rich people with profit motivation to own their teams. Its a fact. (and FYI...the salary cap is instituted to guarantee that each of these greedy owners makes a lot of money. But...on the other hand, most fans feel that is good nevertheless because it promotes parity....and avoids the situation just as you state: that only the wealthy, big market teams take all the good players and all the titles.
But, here is an interesting phenomena: The one league that does NOT have a salary cap is baseball. Yet, it is baseball that has had about the most parity of any of the sports.
I would have to check on whether any of the other teams in the other leagues are essentially "community owned"....but I doubt that they are.
MLB is a bit different especially with their farm system expenses compare with the NFL, NBA but you GENERALLY still want to be in the upper echelon of payrolls to be competitive (FORBES opening day payroll, not after the in season dumps):
Rk '17Team2017 PayrollRk '162016 Payroll% +/-1
Dodgers$225,553,0871$234,648,955-3.9%2
Tigers$199,750,6003$195,901,4812.0%3
Yankees$195,282,0582$225,228,650-13.3%4
Giants$181,514,4315$173,203,2784.8%5
Red Sox$178,818,0524$190,377,215-6.1%6
Cubs$176,872,3126$170,266,5983.9%7
Rangers$173,114,7308$149,338,55315.9%8
Nationals$164,591,08810$147,084,54611.9%9
Orioles$164,261,2999$147,894,71311.1%10
Angels$164,050,8337$166,285,8331.3%11
Mets$155,641,37913$138,871,05712.1%12
Mariners$154,157,72012$142,323,2908.3%13
Cardinals$150,380,00011$144,596,0004.0%14
Royals$145,925,25015$137,318,4776.3%15
BlueJays$143,941,10014$138,063,2284.3%16
Rockies$127,943,57117$113,244,57113.0%17
Braves$126,079,52422$95,371,64832.2%18
Indians$125,808,02927$87,196,40044.3%19
Astros$122,407,23323$94,058,50030.1%20
Marlins$120,191,29728$74,851,29560.6%21Phillies$111,868,37825$91,852,16721.8%22Twins$104,837,50018$104,083,7000.7%23W. Sox$100,054,93716$115,248,667-13.2%24DBacks$93,180,49921$97,266,463-4.2%25Reds$93,026,28624$92,732,3030.3%26Pirates$91,499,17220$98,780,500-7.4%27Athletics$81,738,33426$87,326,233-6.4%28Rays$71,351,61129$67,291,0086.0%29Padres$61,411,78919$102,381,219-40.0%30Brewers$60,810,09030$59,843,4361.6%
-
The problem in european soccer is, as there is no cap salary (I envy NFL for that), if the owner of your team is an association, or a billionaire, makes a huge difference in the team and therefore the competition.
For instance, my home team, Osasuna, is owned by the fans, and we don't have a milliona ire inverting on it, so it is pretty difficult for a team located in a region with 500,000 inhabitants to even stay in Spanish Primera Division. There are other teams with more numerous fanbases or with more investors and that affects the competition.
Anyway, there's a proud feeling of having a team owned by the fans.
Salary caps a good necessary "evil" in sports, without them you end up with the NY YANKEE$.
ALSO of the 32 NFL teams 17 show ownership after 2000 and only 5 excluding GB before 1990......new money or at least new financing.
Rich people have always owned sports teams, race horses, sailing ships why? Because they are the only ones that can.
Salary caps a good necessary "evil" in sports, without them you end up with the NY YANKEE$.
ALSO of the 32 NFL teams 17 show ownership after 2000 and only 5 excluding GB before 1990......new money or at least new financing.
Rich people have always owned sports teams, race horses, sailing ships why? Because they are the only ones that can.
Wasn't Ted Stepien the reason that a salary cap was invented to begin with?
-
Salary caps a good necessary "evil" in sports, without them you end up with the NY YANKEE$.
ALSO of the 32 NFL teams 17 show ownership after 2000 and only 5 excluding GB before 1990......new money or at least new financing.
Rich people have always owned sports teams, race horses, sailing ships why? Because they are the only ones that can.
Wasn't Ted Stepien the reason that a salary cap was invented to begin with?
Wasn't Ted Stepien the reason that a salary cap was invented to begin with?
No. I don't think so. He was responsible for the "Stepian rule", which as far as I know is still in place. That rule says that an NBA team may not trade more than one of its future first round draft picks in a row. Stepian had traded like 4-5 of the Cavs future draft picks in like one year....and only picking up a bunch of mediocre at best players....the likes of Scott Wedman etc. (how is that for a blast from the past?)
-
Wasn't Ted Stepien the reason that a salary cap was invented to begin with?
No. I don't think so. He was responsible for the "Stepian rule", which as far as I know is still in place. That rule says that an NBA team may not trade more than one of its future first round draft picks in a row. Stepian had traded like 4-5 of the Cavs future draft picks in like one year....and only picking up a bunch of mediocre at best players....the likes of Scott Wedman etc. (how is that for a blast from the past?)
No. I don't think so. He was responsible for the "Stepian rule", which as far as I know is still in place. That rule says that an NBA team may not trade more than one of its future first round draft picks in a row. Stepian had traded like 4-5 of the Cavs future draft picks in like one year....and only picking up a bunch of mediocre at best players....the likes of Scott Wedman etc. (how is that for a blast from the past?)
I thought he started way overpaying for players like W B Free. Been awhile tho.
-
No. I don't think so. He was responsible for the "Stepian rule", which as far as I know is still in place. That rule says that an NBA team may not trade more than one of its future first round draft picks in a row. Stepian had traded like 4-5 of the Cavs future draft picks in like one year....and only picking up a bunch of mediocre at best players....the likes of Scott Wedman etc. (how is that for a blast from the past?)
I thought he started way overpaying for players like W B Free. Been awhile tho.
I thought he started way overpaying for players like W B Free. Been awhile tho.
He didn't overpay for World B. Free. World B. Free may have saved this franchise. No....it was for the fact that he stripped the club of any future in return for a handful of magic beans....that were inert.
-
I thought he started way overpaying for players like W B Free. Been awhile tho.
He didn't overpay for World B. Free. World B. Free may have saved this franchise. No....it was for the fact that he stripped the club of any future in return for a handful of magic beans....that were inert.
He didn't overpay for World B. Free. World B. Free may have saved this franchise. No....it was for the fact that he stripped the club of any future in return for a handful of magic beans....that were inert.
Ok, it seems he had some interesting views on race too.
-
He didn't overpay for World B. Free. World B. Free may have saved this franchise. No....it was for the fact that he stripped the club of any future in return for a handful of magic beans....that were inert.
Ok, it seems he had some interesting views on race too.
Ok, it seems he had some interesting views on race too.
You mean Stepian? Yea...I think he had a kind of plantation mentality. Here was some of his handiwork:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login