Close menu

Gareth Bale fee affordable while TV deals inflate football market

By David BondBBC sports editor

Last updated on .From the section Footballcomments267

Gareth Bale unveiled as Real Madrid player

For many people, Gareth Bale's £85m record-breaking transfer to Real Madrid is another sign of football's ever weakening grip on reality.

A brilliant player - no question. The most exciting young star in the Premier League - absolutely. One of the best in the world? Not yet.

But then Real's signing of Bale is not only about his ability on the pitch. It's about image rights and shirt sales and sending a statement to the rest of Spanish football and beyond that Real are still the biggest and richest footballing institution on the planet.

Florentino Perez, the construction entrepreneur who is president of Real Madrid, is the master of the grand gesture. Over the past 13 years he has broken the world record transfer five times - Figo in 2000,Zidane in 2001,Kaka and then Ronaldo in 2009 and now Bale in 2013. Those five players cost a cool £303.6m.

It's an eye-watering sum of money. But it is money Real Madrid can afford. Last year the Spanish club earned £415m, making them the wealthiest football club on the planet. And besides, Perez argues that in the end these marquee signings pay for themselves in increased replica shirt sales and sponsorship.

It's hard to really test this theory, although there is little doubt that clubs can charge sponsors a much higher price if their teams include a handful of superstar players. As the Uefa president Michel Platini said last week, footballers are no longer players, they are products.

In one sense Real Madrid are a special case. Their motivation for spending is driven by local and global forces. No big player is signed at the Santiago Bernabeu without a glance back at old rivals Barcelona. Their £50m signing of the Brazil striker Neymar earlier this summer only made Real's pursuit of Bale more intense.

Perez also sees an opportunity to take advantage of the Premier League's global appeal - particularly in Asia and the United States. Bale might not be seen as the finished article here, but when NBC launched its new exclusive TV deal for the Premier League this summer the 24-year-old Welshman was chosen as the face to adorn posters in New York's Times Square.

But beyond Madrid, this has been a summer of lavish spending across England and Europe. By the time the transfer window shuts, Premier League clubs will have taken gross transfer spending way past the previous record of £500m.

Tottenham didn't wait for the Bale deal to be completed before spending almost £100m on new players to replace him, while Manchester City have spent £97.5m, Liverpool more than £70m and Chelsea £57m.

So while Madrid and Barcelona - plus a couple of clubs in France and Italy - have been spending big, as a collective unit the Premier League still has the most financial muscle.

Why?

Once again, it's all down to pay TV. From this season, clubs in the Premier League will start to benefit from the new £5.5bn, three-year deal for domestic and overseas TV rights. Much of this - £3bn - comes from Sky and BT Sport. The competition between these two companies has helped inflate the football economy to unprecedented levels.

And to think this is supposed to be the season when new cost control measures introduced by Uefa and the Premier League start to bite. Even Arsene Wenger, the prudent Arsenal manager who recently described this summer's spending as crazy, has been sucked in, spending £42m on Real Madrid's Mesut Ozil.

But then these measures are only designed to stop clubs spending what they cannot afford.

So while the sums being spent by clubs here and in Europe might seem extraordinary, the even more extraordinary sums being paid by TV companies to show live football mean they can probably just about afford it.

Comments

Join the conversation

These comments are now closed.

267 comments

  • Comment posted by Tinoflyer, at 21:05 2 Sep 2013

    Actually it doesn't make much sense at all. Real Madrid are carrying a hefty debt, but far worse is that the Govt give them huge tax breaks that dwarf the Bale fee.

    This makes it a social disgrace for a country on its knees with 50% youth unemployment. Fortunately, Spain is getting to grips with. They can't afford to bale out Real anymore - and it will bite them very soon.

  • Comment posted by Anon-y-mouse, at 20:51 2 Sep 2013

    I don't understand this fixation with articles about Real Madrid having to contain the line "the wealthiest/richest club in the world"

    Yes the income was £415m but no mention of the debt the club carries.

    If I have £10M in my bank account but owe £11M, does that make me rich?

  • Comment posted by planetbloo, at 22:12 2 Sep 2013

    I wonder what the people of Spain think about 100m Euros being spent on one player by a football club which has regularly been subsidised by local government and has massive unpaid tax bills. All in a country where 30% of the working population is unemployed and is rapidly becoming one of the poorest in Europe. Beyond obscene.

  • Comment posted by Oysterman, at 19:57 2 Sep 2013

    Absolute nonsense............no where near as much fun as in the old days..then you could support your local club with many local players.

    The money may be mega bucks but the entertainment certainly isn't.

  • Comment posted by rinsed, at 20:10 2 Sep 2013

    maybe all you armchair analysts can clear something up for me? why is it that "contributors" on here often caveat their compliments about other teams/ other team's players with the words "and that's coming from me, an [arsenal/man u/liverpool/whoever] fan!!!" as if objectively commenting and observing football is some sort of mental, unusual thing that needs highlighting?... totally bizarre.

  • Comment posted by mcpigulator, at 17:46 2 Sep 2013

    £85 million paid to Spurs over 4 years is easily affordable for Real Madrid. Wages and other fees will increase that cost over the term of the player's contract but will be offset by income.
    A good deal for both clubs - but even better for Bale

  • Comment posted by Coolica1, at 20:47 2 Sep 2013

    How can anyone justify paying 100 million euros or 85 million pounds for the services of 1 man just because he has well coordinated feet? Don't know if that is more disgusting than the wages of 300k a week even before tax.

    Many people, some of them who save lives for a living, will have to work for over 5 years to earn what Mr Bale will "earn" in 1 week. Absolutely pathetic!

  • Comment posted by Clearsighted, at 07:59 3 Sep 2013

    Over the summer the BBC indulged in 10 articles on Rooney , Fabegas and Suarez and their supposed transfers, inviting near 10,000 comments. The day after the transfer window closes when we have facts can't even comment on the Ozil or Fellani deal let alone other transfer issues the BBC deem them not worthy of comment ? What is going on. You would get over 2000 comments if you opened either thread.

  • Comment posted by U15732046, at 23:28 2 Sep 2013

    Honk Honk............Moyes the Clown is driving his car to Everton again.

    No Fabregas, No Bale, No Ronaldo......No Worries......£27m for Fellaini,,,,,,,,who was going for £23m a few weeks ago

    Honk Honk....and hoof it up to Marouane

  • Comment posted by U15830092, at 23:27 2 Sep 2013

    my team looks like going to the wall for less than a top players weekly wage , how many small clubs have to go to the wall before some of the money men pass some of the mega millions down , English football is not just not 18 premier and a few big clubs , English football died the day the English premier league was set up , foreign owners , managers and players
    ENGLISH FOOTBALL R.I.P

  • Comment posted by Diadochi, at 18:15 2 Sep 2013

    Real Madrid only went for Bale because Barca beat them to Neymar. They were determined to sign another player who was a 'superstar' even though, in my opinion Isco is probably a more exciting player, although he arrived with a lot less fanfare (and a much lower pricetag)

  • Comment posted by U15121739, at 14:01 3 Sep 2013

    and another thing...Real Madrid seems to be the pinnacle of a players career..why is this?...I mean really... think about it, yes they have a rich history...but are players that move there consistent winners in recent times?...lets take ronaldo for example he moved there in 2009 and has won...2 trophies??

  • Comment posted by U15300310, at 00:58 3 Sep 2013

    How journalism works.

    2 days before the window closes - ''Why haven't they signed anyone! they need a midfielder/big-name signing/anyone. Everyone must spend, to spend is to win.''
    2 days after - ''Ohhh football has lost touch with the common man, disgusting fees, think of the children/hospitals/fabric of society''.

    make up your minds, lads.

  • Comment posted by Wainwright, at 00:32 3 Sep 2013

    Man U morphing into Everton is near completion... just waiting on confirmation of the last second signing of Alan Stubbs.

  • Comment posted by U15810942, at 21:04 2 Sep 2013

    #57, 42 million for Ozil is far too much, a decent player but always first on the Madrid list to dump to get Bale. I do hate Arsenal but if they get Di Maria I'll have to admit they've bought a very good player, just as I have to admit Arsenal deserved to win yesterday. Even though they were at home, only had 43% possession and only won 1-0 with their best team against a team still needing to gel.

  • Comment posted by Stephen Marsh, at 20:16 2 Sep 2013

    Real may have earned £415m, but what did they spend last year? In the absence of that figure, Bond's point is largely irrelevant. If Real are so rich, why do they need to pay in installments? I do agree though that Bale isn't one of the best players in the world (& may never be), he didn't even score the most goals in the EPL last year, but was voted 'best' despite RVP's golden boot & title medal

  • Comment posted by magicroundaboutcentral, at 20:13 2 Sep 2013

    28. Manchester United London

    I have also followed Real all my life....same as many many others! I support an English club but I always chose Real over Barca and Celtic over Rangers and Juve over the rest etc etc...do you assume he's a Man U fan given he's not from Manchester...is that it?

    Good luck to him at RM, hope he is very successful

  • Comment posted by Steve, at 20:04 2 Sep 2013

    Rooney better than Bale?!? Have you taken your meds today mate?

  • Comment posted by Cookie, at 19:45 2 Sep 2013

    22 men kicking an inflated bit of leather around. No sense of proportion remains in association football.

  • Comment posted by U15813265, at 19:27 2 Sep 2013

    Did Real Madrid pay VAT on Bale when they bought him? Did Tottenham pay Capital gains tax?

    No?

    Football transfers need to be taxed back to reality.

Top Stories