This list makes teams like the Red Sox and Man Utd really stand out for good management.

RC Bangalore? Time to Google...

edit: Would have guessed cricket if I'd had to.

This list makes teams like the Red Sox and Man Utd really stand out for good management.

Even more so, it really makes teams like the Knicks and Pistons stand out for execrable management.

Even more so, it really makes teams like the Knicks and Pistons stand out for execrable management.

That, but also the methodology in the article exaggerates basketball payrolls because it's going by average per player so any NBA team at the cap is going to be high on the list while NFL teams will be nowhere near the top because they have so many players on the roster.

Dallas Mavericks at 5th with no rings show Mark Cuban as the loudmouth blowhard that he is. No wonder people want him to buy the Cubs.

Surprised to find the USC Trojans weren't on the list but I forgot that Pete Caroll had left.

The even lower standing of American football's NFL was also a surprise, given that it has the biggest average crowds in world sport by far (67,509 people per game) and annual revenues of almost £5bn. In the NFL, I found the average pay to be £22,506 per week, or £1.2 million per year.

It's no surprise at all given the methodology. The average pay in the NFL should be expected to be lower because there are so many more players per team. And looking at per-game attendance? Really?

And what do they mean by "first team?" Does that just exclude affiliates in lesser leagues?

Dallas Mavericks at 5th with no rings show Mark Cuban as the loudmouth blowhard that he is.

Well he was robbed of one.

Dallas Mavericks at 5th with no rings show Mark Cuban as the loudmouth blowhard that he is.

I am neither a Mavericks nor a Mark Cuban fan, but this is a ridiculous statement. Aside from the fact that championships are a pretty poor measure of success(a team can have a successful year and not win the championship), the Mavs might have won in 06 if the refs didn't decide that giving Dwyane Wade a dirty look was a foul.

And what do they mean by "first team?" Does that just exclude affiliates in lesser leagues?

I assume it also excludes soccer players who are on loan to another team or on the practice team, NFL practice squad players, etc.

Man Utd pay an average of £2.9m a year, Chelsea £3.6m. It's not a vast difference (especially considering Chelsea hava a smaller squad).

The figures in the sportingintelligence sports salaries database are calculated having stripped out the pension and social security costs, stripped out the training staff costs... [non-sporting] staff costs and temp costs, and the costs for players who are not in the first-team set-up.

This is a huge deal. Part of the reason why Barcelona are able to have a much higher wage bill is tax status. For example, according to those accounts, Arsenal had to pay £13m in pensions and social security charges. If Barcelona had to pay an extra 12.8% of that wage bill in employer's national insurance contributions alone, things would change pretty quick.

As previous commenters have stated, cross-sport comparisons are difficult at best.

And what do they mean by "first team?"

It's a football (soccer) term meaning essentially the starting players plus regular backups. Another cross-sport difficulty. In baseball, does that translate only to the starting 9, or the 25-man, or the 40-man, or what?

Even more so, it really makes teams like the Knicks and Pistons stand out for execrable management.

Dude, I just looked up RC Bangalore, and I think they went 4-10 last season in the Indian cricket championships. Now THAT's bad mangement.

In baseball, does that translate only to the starting 9, or the 25-man, or the 40-man, or what?

Based on a quick and dirty cross-checking of their numbers with Cot's, it looks like it's the 25.

Man Utd pay an average of £2.9m a year, Chelsea £3.6m. It's not a vast difference (especially considering Chelsea hava a smaller squad).

I can't speak to the size of the squads, so maybe that's the crux of your point here, but 3.6 is, what, roughly 25% more than 2.9? That's a pretty large difference, it seems to me.

I can't speak to the size of the squads, so maybe that's the crux of your point here, but 3.6 is, what, roughly 25% more than 2.9? That's a pretty large difference, it seems to me.

Spoken like a Red Sox fan.

Yeah,13, but what's the marginal difference?

I saw an article, maybe ten years ago, that compared salaries of various team sports. At the time, the top twelve earners on a baseball or football team made about as much as a basketball team and the top 25 earners on a football team made about as much as a baseball team. I don't know if this has changed.

Well he was robbed of one.

False.

They are also doing something very, very funky with the Indian Premier League cricket data.

The IPL season is only 6 weeks long, but it looks as if they are annualizing that data to get to the "per year" figure. It's even more misleading in Kevin Pietersen's case, because he was available for less than half of the IPL season (he played six matches for RCB before returning to the English national team).

They are calculating it on salary per week.

This is a British website and is basing everything off the way things are done in football (soccer) where wages are usually quoted as a weekly figure.

Yes, but they also include a "per year" figure (which results in the same ranking because it just multiplies "per week" by 52).

I just don't see how you get to RCB paying KP more than 8 million quid, when the reality was something more like 450,000.

This list makes teams like the Red Sox and Man Utd really stand out for good management.

It does? How?

I'm talking about the Red Sox specifically; I don't know anything about Manchester United. And to be clear, the Red Sox management seems fine to me. But how does this list make them stand out as particularly good?

They spend, what, second most? Maybe fifth most? And they typically wind up with, what, the second-to-fifth most wins? Once in a while the most, once in a while the twelfth or something?

The list doesn't say anything about them, actually. But their spending-to-wins shows, what, they're not incompetent, right? I don't see how it shows that they're "good", let alone that they "really stand out" as good.

wcs,

Actually if you spend the 2nd most money and finish with the 2nd best record, that's actually an above average result.

Since the relationship between spending and winning is imperfect, the expected finish of a team that is second in spending might be something like the 5th or 6th best record (that's just a WAG).

This works in the other direction as well, even the team that is last in the majors in spending would have an expected finish of better than last.

World Soccer, from what I have been able to garner, has a very weird concept called the transfer fee, which is shared between the player and his outgoing team (and sometimes even further down the line, with the team that "developed" the player).

I don't see any explanation of this in the article, so I have no idea what they are comparing things to here.

Transfer fees won't be included, only salary. Players don't get a share of any transfer fee, but they often get a wage raise and signing bonus, for agreeing to the trade.

It does? How?

They may have finished 2d in their division, but that's generally the same as 2d in all of baseball. It also includes 2 WS titles in the last 6 years (more than the Yankees), despite spending far less money. They're getting the same results as the Yankees, or better, despite spending far less money.

Players don't get a share of any transfer fee, but they often get a wage raise and signing bonus, for agreeing to the trade.

Often they do, but it's negotiable.

A transfer fee is essentially what the Red Sox paid for Daisuke: it's a purchase of the rights for the purchasing team to negotiate a new contract with a player currently under contract with another team. Unlike in baseball, when the player switches teams, he joins his new team with a brand new contract negotiated between the player and his new club. Most teams sell players before their contract expires, because there's no compensation at all for players who leave at the end of their contracts and if they haven't negotiated an extension within a year and a half of the end, they feel like they're better off taking the money.

Traditionally the player and his representation get 10% of the transfer fee. There are exceptions, though and I don't think it's mandatory per se.

They may have finished 2d in their division, but that's generally the same as 2d in all of baseball. It also includes 2 WS titles in the last 6 years (more than the Yankees), despite spending far less money. They're getting the same results as the Yankees, or better, despite spending far less money.

Nice use of endpoints! Why not use the more traditional 10? or 5?

Nice use of endpoints! Why not use the more traditional 10? or 5?

He probably could have gone with 7 (Theo took charge) or 8 seasons (Henry group bought team), since that's when the current Red Sox management team took over. His point wouldn't change with either of those end points, however.

Where would Hendrick Motorsports fit in that list?:

Dale Earnhardt Jr. - $30 million
Jeff Gordon - $27 million
Jimmie Johnson - $23 million
Mark Martin - $11 million

I think those figures may include endorsements, though...

Actually if you spend the 2nd most money and finish with the 2nd best record, that's actually an above average result.

So is spending the most money and being the best also "above average"?

So is spending the most money and being the best also "above average"?

Yes. It's not rocket science.

A transfer fee is essentially what the Red Sox paid for Daisuke: it's a purchase of the rights for the purchasing team to negotiate a new contract with a player currently under contract with another team.

Only in the very broadest sense of the word, because in the case of Daisuke, Dice-K had no control of where he was going. In European soccer, if I understand correctly, the player has the chance of scenery all lined up and then goes back to his home team to get them (or to try to get them) to transfer him.

To try to analogize this with MLB, it's like if A-Rod had been negotiating with the Red Sox and Yankees while in Texas, and only after he had a deal in place does he involve the Rangers so as to force a trade (and in fact, European transfers almost never entail a player going back to the outgoing team. I say almost because of the Eto'o for Ibrahimovic transfer from last year, though that was still not a trade in the MLB sense of the word).

Only in the very broadest sense of the word, because in the case of Daisuke, Dice-K had no control of where he was going. In European soccer, if I understand correctly, the player has the chance of scenery all lined up and then goes back to his home team to get them (or to try to get them) to transfer him.

To try to analogize this with MLB, it's like if A-Rod had been negotiating with the Red Sox and Yankees while in Texas, and only after he had a deal in place does he involve the Rangers so as to force a trade (and in fact, European transfers almost never entail a player going back to the outgoing team. I say almost because of the Eto'o for Ibrahimovic transfer from last year, though that was still not a trade in the MLB sense of the word).

Sometimes players initiate transfers but the majority are initiated by the teams. It's actually against the rules for a team to talk to a player under contract to another club unless his contract is about to expire (although that rule is more honored in the breach than the observance). A top star like Ibrahimovic has the stroke to pull something like that, sure, but that's as similar to the majority of transfers as the A-Rod trade was to the majority of baseball trades.

Normally what happens is the buying club (perhaps via agents) contacts the selling club, who give the OK to a deal in principle. They then do a little dance where the buying club works out a deal with the player and other interested parties (agents, commerical partners), the player works out the cancellation of his deals with the selling club and other interested parties, and the buying and selling club work out a fee. Note that the player's registration may be co-owned by commercial entities etc. If any of the parties say no, there is no deal. When the dance is done, the contracts are signed and the player's registration changes.

To put it in baseball terms, every player has a complete no-trade, even minor leaguers, and cash considerations are unlimited. You rarely trade for players back because working out both players' no-trades would be too complicated, so it's easier to do two separate deals.

Dealing with player transfers is a cottage industry for lawyers and agents. If you think Scott Boras is crooked...

Only in the very broadest sense of the word, because in the case of Daisuke, Dice-K had no control of where he was going. In European soccer, if I understand correctly, the player has the chance of scenery all lined up and then goes back to his home team to get them (or to try to get them) to transfer him.

They actually can't negotiate with the other team until a transfer fee is agreed. But for the big stars, they don't have to. Cristiano Ronaldo can tell Manchester United that he wants to be sold to Real Madrid because he knows Real Madrid is going to say "why yes, we are indeed interested in that player."

The reality is that transfers evolve from what are generally fairly obvious situations: a player whose quality has grown to the point where it's in his club's interest to sell him to a better team (Wayne Rooney to Man Utd from Everton); a situation where a talented player is mired behind other talented players (Samuel Eto'o from Real Madrid to Mallorca); a situation where a star player cannot be convinced to extend his contract despite having the money to do so (Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid from Man Utd). It works itself out because all of the parties involved seem to recognize that each stands to benefit from making the move.

A big difference from baseball is in a Carlos Silva or Milton Bradley type situation: since a transfer would involve a new contract, they pretty much are impossible to sell since the player himself would likely turn down any contract that involved a drastic pay cut. The best bet would be loan moves with the loaning team paying part of the salary.

So is spending the most money and being the best also "above average"?

Well, generally yes, but once you get to "the most" and "the least" you can come upon situations where the numbers are really badly stratified. You see it a lot in some European football leagues, though that can apply to 2nd most as well. But that's not really the numbers the Red Sox have been trafficking in, especially the last three years or so.

The difference in how much is spent between say Rangers and Celtic and then everybody else in Scotland is just unbelievably massive. In such a situation, yeah 2nd place is no better than meeting expectations. But we really don't have that in baseball for any non-Yankee team, and even the Yankees shouldn't be expected to have _the_ best record every year.

A big difference from baseball is in a Carlos Silva or Milton Bradley type situation: since a transfer would involve a new contract, they pretty much are impossible to sell since the player himself would likely turn down any contract that involved a drastic pay cut. The best bet would be loan moves with the loaning team paying part of the salary.

What sometimes happens in this situation is that the selling team agrees to pay a portion of the player's wages. I believe Leeds wound up paying half a dozen guys not to play for them.

Ok, if nothing else, the above explanations about European transfers should prove why it's very, very difficult to compare the salaries of European soccer players to those of North American team sports (well, North America sans Mexico).

Ok, if nothing else, the above explanations about European transfers should prove why it's very, very difficult to compare the salaries of European soccer players to those of North American team sports (well, North America sans Mexico).

Exactly, because the player expenditure balance sheets would have to take into account both players bought and sold as well as the salaries of the guys on the team.

Real Madrid has almost certainly spent the Yankees under the table the last few years.

I think those figures may include endorsements, though...

The NASCAR figures include endorsements and merchandising. My dog has a Dale Earnhardt, Jr. squeaky toy. She's a big fan.

Real Madrid has almost certainly spent the Yankees under the table the last few years.

I don't know what the balance was, but didn't they spend something like 200-250 million euros on transfers during last summer's transfer period alone? Ronaldo, Kaka, and the money that went over with Eto'o was supposed to be close to 200 million by itself. Then there's Benzema and the others...it's mind boggling.

Man U is very efficient this year because pound lost something like 20% - 30% value compared to euro and USD.
In football teams have to extend their players every 3 years, or they can leave for some predetermined amount based on their salaries, often much lower than expected transfer fee. That raises salaries.
Also, football players have bonuses in their contracts, often based on league wins, goals scored or assisted, clean sheets kept, trophies collected, or even league position/how far they advanced in cups (without winning either). Bonuses for some players are more than 50% of their fixed wages. I don't know if they are included, but if not, top football clubs should be added at least 25% of their wages.

Puck, Eto'o went from Barca to Inter Milan, plus about 40 million Euros (Inter Milan sort of "sent back" Ibrahimovic).