sorry it took me so long to reply but I was offline for a few days. Generally speaking I agree with some of your views while I disagree on others.

But I want to focus on two side aspects where I have a different opinion:

you seem to be convinced that Gazprom’s main intention is to gain exposure in the CL. While it might have played a role in Schalke`s sponsorship deal, the exposure in the Bundesliga and the improvement of Gazprom’s image in Germany was surely the primary reason for their engagement. Germany is Gazprom`s most important market outside Russia. If you had been the CEO of Gazprom, would you have honestly thought that sponsoring a Premier League team would make more sense ?

Secondly, you write that it is much easier to watch Premier League in China than e.g. Bundesliga. You are living in China and maybe have more accurate information than myself, but didn`t the Premier League go pay-TV over there this season and hasn`t the amount of potential viwers of PL matches in China been reduced to a mere 30,000 to 300,000 subscribers? I am asking out of interest because I haven`t heard of that issue for months.
German companies sponsor clubs and athletes in various sports around the globe. They don`t do it for the potential viewers back home in Germany but in order to boost their image in markets where they sell products.

And the nature of the firms that choose to sponsor Bundesliga clubs confirms the importance of the domestic market. Unlike many of the Premier League clubs, who have looked to ties to “global brands” in order to boost their revenue, Bundesliga sponsors are still much more focussed on the domestic market. In fact, in many cases (the energy companies, T-Home, and Die Bahn, for example) one cannot even buy the products or services being advertised outside of Germany.

I will just quickly point to my first answer in this thread, which gives you some ideas why the Bundesliga can cash in when it comes to shirt sponsorship, but since that involves a lot of scrolling by now, I’ll repeat:

Germany is Europe’s largest market economy and has Europe’s biggest media market. Those are two factor’s which make it more likely for clubs to be able to get higher sponsorship deals in general. Especially if you add to that, that the Bundesliga has the highest free to air TV presence of any major European football league, then even smaller clubs with a low fanbase get enough public exposure to give them relatively well paid shirt deals. That is really most of the magic behind it and it has zero to do with the Bundesliga’s success in the Champions League or anywhere. In fact, the Bundesliga’s shirt deals would be even higher, if its’ clubs would succeed to become glamour brands in the Champions League and in general be more successful. But the current situation has little to do with which league is better and bigger than yours or whether Bremen was “SCR battered by Lyon 10-2 on aggregate” or whether Stuttgart lost all but one Champions League match “LOLZ”.

And in general there are so many strange disjointed and often distorted arguments floating around in the above comments now.

I mean I can design any stat to suit my interest and argument. If you point out the last matchday finish of the Premier League last season, then i could point out that in the last nine seasons the Bundesliga was decided on the final matchday on four occasions versus one in the Premier League. I can make the same stat more Premier League friendly by making it last ten seasons, in which case the Premier League was decided on the final matchday twice vs four times in the Bundesliga. I can say how impressive it is for Middlesbrough to reach the UEFA Cup final while being in the lower half of the EPL table (or was it because of the UEFA Cup?). I could say the EPL failed to put even one team into even the quarter final of the UEFA Cup for the last two seasons, to make a big 4 argument, but I won’t because this stuff is simply a distorted meaningless stat and number game. And more importantly has nothing to do with shirt deals.

For instance: “But after those four clubs, the interest greatly decreases” or “In the EPL, after the “big 4″, I’d be surprised if clubs got as much as 5M/year, since the risk of relegation is bigger than that of Champions’ League exposure (Tottenham, Newcastle…).”

I’m still trying to figure out who you are arguing with.

Why do Schalke have a bigger shirt contract than Arsenal or Liverpool? Because Gazprom is bankrolling the club (and want to ensure they’ll be in the CL for the next few years to gain maximum exposure). Also, Arsenal and Liverpool signed their shirt contracts three seasons ago, against only one season for Schalke. When Arsenal and Liverpool actualise their shirt sponsorship next season or in two seasons, I would be surprised if they didn’t go above Schalke again. But look at Stuttgart. How much was their shirt sponsorship for? A fraction of Man U’s. And the both won the title the same year. The top 4 clubs in England probably have shirt sponsorship deals that are on par with Bayern’s and Schalke’s, whilst being far greater than Bremen, Stuttgart or other HSV’s. But after those four clubs, the interest greatly decreases (little chance of exposition to the Champions’ League/Winning title). Whilst in the Bundesliga, behind Bayern and Schalke, there are 5-6 clubs that generate a relatively large amount of sponsor interest, because in the 4-5 years the contract will last, they do have a good chance of winning the title or playing the champions’ league! Even if all 4 of the “big 4″ were on 20M/year deals (same as Bayern), that’d only be 80M. Since Bayern is 20M, it’s only 10M per club for the other 6. Schalke take 17 M, so you can even end up with 4-5 M for the club that’s the least likely. In the EPL, after the “big 4″, I’d be surprised if clubs got as much as 5M/year, since the risk of relegation is bigger than that of Champions’ League exposure (Tottenham, Newcastle…). So simply because the “Big 4″ aren’t on 20M/year deals, you have the reason why the Bundesliga has more shirt sponsorship.

The Bundesliga is not a “genuinely competitive league”. The US sport leagues are. And in no US sport (not even Baseball) is there a team that has dominated for so long and so emphatically a division. Bayern have 46% of all Bundesliga titles. A “genuinely competitive league” would see perhaps one team getting 10% of the titles (and that would already be quite surprising), but surely not just shy of half.

In the time Man U racked up 10 of 15 titles, Bayern took 9. Man U won two champions’ Leagues, Bayern won a champions’ League and a UEFA Cup. And Man U are a team that are incompatible with a “genuinely competitive league”, since they are churning out results season after season (they’re well managed both on and off the pitch, like Bayern). So what’s the point to be made here? That Man U are crushing the EPL as part of the “Big 4″ but that Bayern is in a completely level league?

Same with Lyon. Before 1992, how long had Man U waited for a title? Before 1985 Rosenborg had only won the Norwegian title three times, the latest being 14 years before. Didn’t stop them taking 17 titles in 21 years. Again, what point do you want to make? Shirt sponsorship are 3-5 year deals. So the figures for the 2008/09 season go back probably to decisions made in 2003/04 or later. And with Lyon winning the league by 10+ points most of those years, I can’t see why any company would not negotiate hard with the other clubs to push down the price tag.

Shirt sponsorship is directly dependant on how many people will see the advertisement favourably. Clubs that are in the Champions’ League can negotiate hard to get good deals because of the extra visibility in the Champions’ League. China is (unless I’m mistaken) one of the fastest-growing markets in the world for consumer products. They import a lot of football, so for a company that’s looking into investing in shirt sponsorship, I don’t see why it’s irrelevant how “visible” said brands are. I think it is Everton and Tottenham that are sponsored by Chinese brands, very simply because they are seen by massive amounts of Chinese people. If my company decided to make an advertisement (that’s what it is, in fine) in sports, one of the reasons why I belive the marketing department would opt for an EPL/La Liga/Serie A side rather than a China Super League side (yes, I’m in China) is very simply because of how easier it is to view football from those leagues (and the NBA) than any other league, Bundesliga included.

I’m still waiting for the millions of LBO debt to break down. I mean, I’ll keep an eye out, but last thing I remember Borussia Dortmund failed economically pretty much at the same time as Leeds United did, and for pretty much the same reasons. Perhaps the EPL will suffer a massive money problem. But so far they’ve done better than Citibank, Lehman Brothers and the US Auto-makers, so I don’t think they’re actually doing -that- badly. And really, if they were short on cash, would United buy Berbatov for 30+ Million pounds? Would Pavlyuchenko, Modric, Keane, Fellaini, Bentley, Jo, Robinho, Elmander, Johnson, Milner and Crouch be transferred for over 10M pounds if the credit crunch was on the verge of pushing the clubs to bankrupcy?

I’m just fed up of reading all the time about the German league about how balanced it is when it’s just as imbalanced as the EPL, except instead of having four well-managed clubs, there’s only one (Bayern). The EPL isn’t a level playing field, but competitive sports aren’t. The aim is to be the best. If there was some rule that prevented Lyon from signing players from other French clubs, I’d be appalled. It would have kept a few gems at Rennes, but sports aren’t there to be “level”. Lyon are well-managed, they’ve got a good long-term project, and they’ve taken full advantage of the short-falls of their competitors. But there’s nothing stopping a well-organised team (Bordeaux?) from having an equally good project and equalling or beating them. I wouldn’t say that there’s a “big 1″ in France, because there’s just one club that’s highly competitive, and 19 that are a lot less. I guess I’m just venting my anger at the “big 4″ myth, but it really annoys me. Wenger got to the final of the Champions’ League by spending probably less on his squad than Bayern Munich did on their strikers. Chelsea were already a champions-league side before Abramovich brough his petrodollars to the table, and Liverpool… well, they’re not backed by millionaires and they haven’t won a title in an ice age, so why they’re considered unbeatable is beyond me… Man U at least won the league a ridiculous amount of times and have the biggest stadium in England. It’s not just the Champions’ League money (or every league in europe would be dead-locked with the teams in the champions’ league almost constantly re-entering), club finances (Man U have lots of money, but so did Borussia, they didn’t have the same fate) or having a millionnaire behind the club (it helps, but Newcastle can testify that it doesn’t do everything). It’s about managers and their staff making choices and making things work. Benitez, Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho and now Scolari are amongst the best, and it shows in their choices. O’Neill is a very good manager and is taking Villa the right way. Only five years ago Newcastle were in the Champions’ League and Liverpool in the UEFA Cup. But Houllier received the board’s confidence the next season whilst Robson got the axe, and Newcastle slowly drifted away whilst Houllier kept Liverpool on track.

To pick just one example, you note that Schalke’s shirt contract is bigger than Aresenal or Liverpool’s, only to then claim that they are investing “only a fraction of what they would have if it was the English League”.

And you are being outrageously disingenuous with your choice of time horizons. Why not mention that Manchester United have won 10 of the 15 Premier League titles? Or acknowledge that OL had never won a French championship before the beginning of their current streak?

With all due respect, the relative availability of Bundesliga matches in China is not particularly relevant to the conversation, and claiming that clubs that are saddled with hundreds of millions of pounds of LBO debt are “well managed” is likely to look rather silly rather soon.

You seem obsessed with proving that the Premier League is “bigger” than the Bundelsiga, but no one has made the opposite claim.

“I stand corrected”.

Said the man in the orthopedic shoes.

But that’s pretty much the fare of every league (except for Ligue 1, har de har). Barcelona, Real Madrid, Valencia, Villareal and Sevilla in Spain, Juventus, Inter, AC Milan and Roma in Italy… Every season where there is a reasonable amount of competition will have (over the past ten years) seasons that were dominated by one team, seasons that were close, seasons that were surprises, and so forth. The Blue Square Premier also has its fair deal of excitement and surprises. But the Conference isn’t a “level” playing field. One club will dominate the league (most likely a relegated club), whilst two or three will struggle all season long. Between them, though, it’s up for grabs.

Bayern’s title-winning is bettered only by Lyon. And Ligue 1 is very level… behind Lyon. Each season has had different 2nd places, I believe. But when Lyon is winning the league with 10 points to spare, it’s not particularly relevant. In Germany, if Bayern lose the title this season, it will effectively be because -they- lost it. Unless Werder have suddenly changed into a different team than the one that is 4th in their Champions’ League group, somehow Shalke have had an overhaul since they lost to Athletico Madrid and failed to even qualify for the group stages, and Hertha/Bayer/Hamburg etc. have also radically changed from last season, the only new “challenger” for Bayern’s crown is Hoffenheim. And seen how convincingly Bayern won last year’s title, given they have the same squad, I don’t think Hoffenheim will stand the distance.

See, if Man U don’t win the league this season, it will be because Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal/Villa/whoever has played at a consistantly high level all season, not because Stuttgart/Shalke/Wolfsburg/Bremen had a brilliant season. Look at it this way : Stuttgart in 2006/07 took 70 points in 34 games. Give them 12 more points, so they have 82 points from 38 games. That would only be third in the EPL that season. And they wouldn’t have played Chelsea, Liverpool or Manchester United, all european semi-finalists that year… The following season, Stuttgart performed dismally in the Champions league, taking 3 points in 6 games (thank you Celtic!).

Are the titles -won- by other teams, or do they just benefit from Bayern’s sometimes bad management? The “big 4″ are there because they have not only taken advantage of a previous club’s fall (Leeds, Newcastle, Blackburn, Norwich, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest) but also because they have turned their whole structure into something dedicated to churning out results. And only Bayern has that kind of structure in Germany. Stuttgart won the league two years ago, and the following season they were lucky to get the Intertoto and not be pipped to 6th place by Bayer Leverkusen. This season, Stuttgart are already 10 points behind Bayern, and 13 behind Hoffenheim. They had one great season (by their standards). In Germany that was enough to give them the title. I don’t know if it would be enough to get them into the top 4 in England. I could go on with Bremen who seemingly get spanked every other year in the Champions League (10-2 to Lyon anybody? 6-1 to Olympiakos?), but that would be slightly off-topic.

Is there any doubt that Bayern Munich is to the Bundesliga what the “Big 4″ are to the EPL? Unless Bayern are playing a relegation candidate, they’re going to be shown to the world. Just like Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal or Man U are in England. And it’s normal, since they are the best team in the league. But that doesn’t make people claim that the Bundesliga is just all about Bayern (even if I sound like it, I do recognise that german football doesn’t start and end at the Allianz-Arena). So why claim that the “big 4″ are all there is in England?

ursus arctos : Commercially, Bayern are the figurehead of the Bundesliga. In China, you can see Bayern’s games quite easily. But try to watch Borussia Dortmund (my favorite german club) and it’s damn near impossible except if they’re playing Bayern… Gazprom is bankrolling Shalke 04 in a big PR stunt (and they hope to feature regularly in the Champions League alongside Bayern), but it’s still not paying off (I mean, Shalke’s -shirt- contract with Gazprom is bigger than Arsenal or Liverpool’s, and I didn’t see Shalke play many Champions’ League finals recently). But really what arguments are there to put forth for the German League? The “Big 4″ has the roots of that advertisement in their results (for instance, they’ve all played a Champions’ League final in the past three seasons). But the German League? Since Bayer Leverkusen won in 2002, only thrice have german clubs reached the quarter-finals of the Champions’ League (Munich 2004/05 & 2006/07, Schalke 2007/08), and not once the semi-finals. The Portuguese, French and Dutch Leagues have at least reached the semi-finals once. The dutch have also had three quarter-finals (Ajax 2002/03, PSV 2004/05 & 2006/07), whilst the french have had four quarter-finals (Lyon 2003/04, 2004/05 & 2005/06, Monaco 2003/04) and the portuguese have won the competition outright (Porto 2003/04).

Why do companies see any greater interest in signing multi-year deals with german clubs rather than english clubs then (or french clubs)? Because unlike the English league were there are four very well managed clubs and chances of qualifying for the champions league (and associated exposure) is extremely small, or the French league that has a lesser reach abroads and is dominated outright by Lyon (as well as having somewhat stricter fiscal policies), the German league is a very “open” league where any of 7-8 clubs can hope to reach the champions’ league within 3-5 years. They probably won’t stay there, but it’s a bet companies are willing to make. 4-5 clubs are even in the running to win the league in that period! If shirt deals were one-year contracts, english clubs would be favored (playing 8 games against Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, plus any cup games against them is probably as close as you can get to Champions’ League level exposure for your brand), but once they’re multi-year (I think Emirates has a 10 year deal with Arsenal…) the prospect of becoming champion and/or participating in the Champions’ League makes the Bundesliga far more interesting. Instead of paying 10 million/year for Man City, Tottenham or Aston Villa who have a real chance of playing the Champions’ League in the next 3-4 years, why not spend 8 million/year on Wolfsburg, Stuttgart or Bremen who are almost sure to play the Champions’ League in that period, and even have a slight chance of being champions? Also, brands want to be associated with winning. Sponsoring Derby County last year was probably viewed by said company as a very bad PR move. And again, what are the chances of seeing the club you sponsor win the EPL if it’s not one of the “big 4″? In 4-5 years, very low. In the Bundesliga, instead of the 8 million/year I mentioned earlier, why not spend the 10 the company initially planned, but with 2 million as a bonus if the club finishes in the top 3? Or even a 4 million bonus if the club is champion? Gazprom are doing it with Schalke (not just shirt, but also stadium…) and Schalke has a very good chance of becoming regular Champions’ League contenders and fighting each year for the Bundesliga title… For merely a fraction of what Gazprom would have had to invest if it was the English League (Man U, Chelsea, now City, but even Liverpool and Arsenal have quite a lot of cash), the Spanish League (Real and Barca have so much money they are on par with small countries, and Valencia, Villareal and Sevilla aren’t poor) or the Italian League (Juve-Fiat, Milan-Berlusconi, Inter-Moratti…) and as an added bonus, it’s an already established “top” league (with St-Petersburg they’ve got the problem that nobody wants to join the Russian league, and few people take the Russian league seriously) with a competitor that’s loaded on history (Bayern).

It’s good for the Bundesliga that they’ve got big shirt sponsorship contracts, but the “big 4″ thing is a product simply of how well said clubs are managed. With City’s billions and Villa’s good management, the “big 4″ will likely be broken (just like the “big 3″ of Man U, Liverpool and Newcastle was broken by Arsenal, and then by Chelsea…), and then we’ll have some new media buzzword possibly around the “big 3″ and the “little 3″ (pick 3 each time from Arsenal, City, Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and Villa), the first three fighting for the title, and the latter three fighting for 4th or sometimes 3rd spot? And people will moan that Everton and Tottenham can’t do anything, and how the league is “all about the big 3″, that the mid-table clubs like Everton or Tottenham can’t challence the “Little 3″ because of the UEFA Cup money (as well as their own resources), or whatever.

And Toby, T-Home (Deutsche Telekom’s retail voice and data service) sponsors the entire 1. Bundesliga. Your Bielefeld example is no different than Manchester United having AIG as their shirt sponsor, Nike as their kit manufacturer and wearing a Barclays Premier League patch on their sleeves.

If you want to see sponsorship gone mad, look at Ligue 1 or any of the Nordic leagues. Even Spain is notably worse in this respect than Germany at the moment.