Transfer: 2019 Winter Transfer Rumors and Discussion Part II

[Deficient Mode]

I don't think the fee was inflated only or even primarily by Pulisic being American. I think Chelsea were afraid of having more competition for his signature in the summer and were willing to pay a premium to (1) complete the deal quickly (rather than leverage his contact situation) and (2) get a player just entering his prime who had already put in good performances for a club playing at a high level with high expectations. Were there players just as good available for cheaper? Probably. But big clubs don't like to take risks on young players without a good reputation and from small clubs - and that criticism is certainly not unique to Pulisic.

Pulisic imo has impressed more in the Bundesliga than Sane had when he left three years ago, and his fee is about 25% higher with rising transfer fees.

 

[Vasilevskiy]

Are Fulham games on TV more than other teams? Does Fulham's US presence bring in a substantial amount of money for the Premier League?

Also, the US Mens National Team isn't even the main National Team of the country. The Mexican National Team is more popular in the USA. They outdraw the USA 2-1 in games played in the USA.

Many Borussia Dortmund games haven't been shown on TV this season. This is while we are in first place. Bayern Munich is still the preferred team to show by Fox Sports. Pulisic didn't make a dent financially while at Borussia Dortmund.

If this has anything to do with marketing, Chelsea should fire their whole marketing department. There's not evidence that signing an American player has much of an impact on club finances.

Come on Buch! Of course there is!
Chelsea are taking a gamble and that's the extra cost. If Pulisic keeps developing and ends up as a Hazard-lite (his top-5 BL player potential), I assure you lots of Chelsea shirts will be sold, as well as bigger revenue via TV, etc

 

[Cassano]

Add the full quote of what he was being asked. This lacks context.

I love this idea that Pulisic is a marketing ploy. It’s unbelievably dumb and is just feeds into the idea that there’s still an anti-American bias in football. Pulisic hasn’t made a dent on TV numbers in the USA. Dortmund often doesn’t make it onto US TV.

Disagree 64mil 1 yr left on contract for bench player. It is a straight up marketing ploy to explain the ludicrous transfer fee. Sarri doesn't have as much control over transfers maybe, but the board definitely saw it as an opportunity for it.

Nothing new with football. RM sold Makelele to sign Beckham.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Are Fulham games on TV more than other teams? Does Fulham's US presence bring in a substantial amount of money for the Premier League?

Also, the US Mens National Team isn't even the main National Team of the country. The Mexican National Team is more popular in the USA. They outdraw the USA 2-1 in games played in the USA.

Many Borussia Dortmund games haven't been shown on TV this season. This is while we are in first place. Bayern Munich is still the preferred team to show by Fox Sports. Pulisic didn't make a dent financially while at Borussia Dortmund.

If this has anything to do with marketing, Chelsea should fire their whole marketing department. There's not evidence that signing an American player has much of an impact on club finances.

There's a reason PL teams come over to the US nearly every summer. There's a reason Man City bought NYCFC. There's a reason Barca and other teams have opened NYC "offices" or whatever you want to call them. Teams see the US as a marketing opportunity. NBC paid a $1 billion for the tv deal. It's obviously a PL goal to grow in the US. I'm not sure how you argue against that. I'm sure Chelsea sees opportunity to grow a fanbase. Some of it is jersey sales, but it's much social media followers and branding reach. Whether you are satisfied with the ROI of these moves really isn't the point.

You're clearly sensitive to this. But there's nothing wrong with thinking there could have been a premium on this price. It's not a big deal. He's not a bad player. He wasn't only sold because he's American. But the idea that some teams don't examine the marketing angle of a player is naive.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This is the first time a major American has ever been on a major club and it's in a league that has the most exposure in the States. I think Pulisic adds some leverage to Chelsea in terms of kit deals moving forward, but many of those that they have are probably already locked in, so I doubt they can renegotiate. There is no doubt that there will be a ton of Pulisic Chelsea jerseys sold in the states.

I'm not familiar with the NBCSN rules, but Chelsea probably gets a few more games, and plenty of new fans looking to pick up a team. The economic impact gets overblown, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even if Pulisic flops, he'll provide Chelsea more of a return on investment than Morata for example.

Many people think that way. I'm asking if there's any evidence that it has any marketing impact.

He played for a very big club in Germany, and there was no significant marketing impact.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Disagree 64mil 1 yr left on contract for bench player. It is a straight up marketing ploy to explain the ludicrous transfer fee. Sarri doesn't have as much control over transfers maybe, but the board definitely saw it as an opportunity for it.

Nothing new with football. RM sold Makelele to sign Beckham.

You think 64 million is ludicrous? Welcome to today's market. This deal is really no different from Keita's, it's just the premium Chelsea paid is not conditional on Dortmund's success. The premium was to get the deal done now, and not wait until the summer.

 

[Evilo]

Marketing what?

No one can ever explain this bad talking point. We are supposed to acknowledge its existence without anyone explaining it in detail. It makes no sense, but I guess it doesn't need to.

Look at yourself in the mirror. You're the perfect example.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Many people think that way. I'm asking if there's any evidence that it has any marketing impact.

He played for a very big club in Germany, and there was no significant marketing impact.

Bundesliga doesn't have much exposure in the States, it's overwhelmingly the Premier League for a few different reasons. Time zone, a network that markets better, and clubs that are more marketable.

It's hard to provide evidence for marketing impact on just about anything. You'd have a hard time proving that Yokohama is making a good or bad deal by sponsoring Chelsea's kit, or any other kit sponsor. Or sponsors of arenas and stadiums. It's about branding exposure, but you can't really determine the revenue generated from it.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Disagree 64mil 1 yr left on contract for bench player. It is a straight up marketing ploy to explain the ludicrous transfer fee. Sarri doesn't have as much control over transfers maybe, but the board definitely saw it as an opportunity for it.

Nothing new with football. RM sold Makelele to sign Beckham.

Pulisic was a clear starter for BVB at age 19 and likely would be still with a different manager willing to play him and Sancho at the same time.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

There's a reason PL teams come over to the US nearly every summer. There's a reason Man City bought NYCFC. There's a reason Barca and other teams have opened NYC "offices" or whatever you want to call them. Teams see the US as a marketing opportunity. NBC paid a $1 billion for the tv deal. It's obviously a PL goal to grow in the US. I'm not sure how you argue against that. I'm sure Chelsea sees opportunity to grow a fanbase. Some of it is jersey sales, but it's much social media followers and branding reach. Whether you are satisfied with the ROI of these moves really isn't the point.

You're clearly sensitive to this. But there's nothing wrong with thinking there could have been a premium on this price. It's not a big deal. He's not a bad player. He wasn't only sold because he's American. But the idea that some teams don't examine the marketing angle of a player is naive.

Did you miss what I said in my post? The US National Team isn't even the main National Team in the country. The US market is bigger than most others, but the US National Team market is not the same thing as the US market. Most soccer fans in the USA are not US National Team fans. Not even close. Pulisic transferring to Chelsea was the 6th or 7th headline on the ESPN website. He's not a big figure in the USA.

If you think my comments come off sensitive, call it what you like. It makes no difference to me. I am merely pointing out that people talking about marketing are not making a point thats grounded in reality. There is no evidence that signing Pulisic makes any significant difference financially that signing a comparable talent doesn't. I don't even think Pulisic is that good, but when people make ignorant comments like he's a marketing ploy due to being American, I am going to push back on these ridiculous comments.

 

[Evilo]

Could they though? Maybe they paid a premium to avoid a bidding war in the summer, but we won't really know what a bidding war would've looked like. It's less than what we spent on Morata. Pulisic is better than Morata and Morata offered 0 off-field revenue. It wasn't even that much in today's market.

Let's not compare to Morata who :
1/ was a bad deal from the start, as everyone stated
2/ is a striker, which are always more expensive than wingers.
3/ wasn't a year away from being free.

65M€ could get you Aouar maybe. Brandt possibly. Coman likely.

Pulisic, on his current level, with a year left in his contract, would get between 30 and 40M. Max.
That doesn't mean he's bad, he's clearly a talented player who needs a change of scenery. Maybe he will shine with Chelsea and we'll all be happy.
But YES there was a fee there that involved more than the talent/contract would get in normal circumstances.

 

[Evilo]

Come on Buch! Of course there is!
Chelsea are taking a gamble and that's the extra cost. If Pulisic keeps developing and ends up as a Hazard-lite (his top-5 BL player potential), I assure you lots of Chelsea shirts will be sold, as well as bigger revenue via TV, etc

Ouch, he'll tell you that's insulting. Anything less than top 5 worldwide is disrespectful.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Let's not compare to Morata who :
1/ was a bad deal from the start, as everyone stated
2/ is a striker, which are always more expensive than wingers.
3/ wasn't a year away from being free.

65M€ could get you Aouar maybe. Brandt possibly. Coman likely.

Pulisic, on his current level, with a year left in his contract, would get between 30 and 40M. Max.
That doesn't mean he's bad, he's clearly a talented player who needs a change of scenery. Maybe he will shine with Chelsea and we'll all be happy.
But YES there was a fee there that involved more than the talent/contract would get in normal circumstances.

I'll disagree there. Any high potential youngster is going to command a very high fee.

The 1 year thing also gets overblown. In American sports it makes sense because teams have to give up players and the player could legitimately go to free agency, but in Euro Football, these guys almost always sign an immediate long-term contract. There is very little risk of paying a large fee and the player doesn't stay long at the club if they are successful there.

 

[Live in the Now]

The fee was inflated because Dortmund had something other teams wanted.

It shouldn't be marketing related because there's zero proof that Dortmund benefited in that way from having him, but having said that, someone at Chelsea may think there's a huge marketing benefit. Personally I genuinely don't see it. People in this country who care about football have already chosen their teams and would have an opinion on a club as big as Chelsea already. Moreover he's not so good as to be one of the best players in the league. Sorry if I'm bursting bubbles.

The fee in terms of the quality of the player is absurd and almost everyone knows that.

 

[Evilo]

I'll disagree there. Any high potential youngster is going to command a very high fee.

The 1 year thing also gets overblown. In American sports it makes sense because teams have to give up players and the player could legitimately go to free agency, but in Euro Football, these guys almost always sign an immediate long-term contract. There is very little risk of paying a large fee and the player doesn't stay long at the club if they are successful there.

No, it's hardly overblown. Look at Rabiot. PSG could have had 50M for him two years ago. Barca offered 20 on August 31st last summer. Now he's leaving and PSG get 0€ out of it.

 

[phisherman]

Part of it is marketing related but I think Dortmund exploited the fact that Chelsea has an upcoming transfer ban so Chelsea had to get the deal done now or else they wouldn't be able to complete it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's just simply what 60ish million buys you nowadays. I feel like every window people act surprised at the ridiculous market, but people need to understand that this is simply what the market is, and it's no longer ridiculous.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No, it's hardly overblown. Look at Rabiot. PSG could have had 50M for him two years ago. Barca offered 20 on August 31st last summer. Now he's leaving and PSG get 0€ out of it.

That's because PSG are dumb and held onto him when they should've known he wanted to leave. There is risk on the team holding the player, not the team acquiring the player. There are probably about 2-3 clubs out there that can wait a player out and bank on them going to them for free, everyone else would need to pay the fee or risk them going elsewhere. Real and Barca have that power, and Bayern to an extent with German players.

Chelsea had no chance at getting Pulisic for free or at a discount, unless that was the only club that Pulisic wanted to be at.

 

[Evilo]

The fee was inflated because Dortmund had something other teams wanted.

It shouldn't be marketing related because there's zero proof that Dortmund benefited in that way from having him, but having said that, someone at Chelsea may think there's a huge marketing benefit. Personally I genuinely don't see it. People in this country who care about football have already chosen their teams and would have an opinion on a club as big as Chelsea already. Moreover he's not so good as to be one of the best players in the league. Sorry if I'm bursting bubbles.

The fee in terms of the quality of the player is absurd and almost everyone knows that.

I think he has enough quality to shine.
And I'm not sure why you feel new fans won't be attracted to Chelsea if they have the best US player. Of course they will. Older fans won't change their allegiance, but how many times, on this hockey board, have we seen US posters ask us who they should support?
They'll play with FIFA with Chelsea and become fans. Later they'll buy shirts and one day come to the stadium.

 

[Evilo]

That's just simply what 60ish million buys you nowadays. I feel like every window people act surprised at the ridiculous market, but people need to understand that this is simply what the market is, and it's no longer ridiculous.

It is simply not the case.
I feel people need to understand there are plenty of good players available for cheap.
Lyon bought Ndombele for 8M. He's twice the player Pulisic is.

It's beyond ridiculous that people act as if everyone needs to pay 60M to get a good player. Scouts would laugh at this statement.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The fee was inflated because Dortmund had something other teams wanted.

It shouldn't be marketing related because there's zero proof that Dortmund benefited in that way from having him, but having said that, someone at Chelsea may think there's a huge marketing benefit. Personally I genuinely don't see it. People in this country who care about football have already chosen their teams and would have an opinion on a club as big as Chelsea already. Moreover he's not so good as to be one of the best players in the league. Sorry if I'm bursting bubbles.

The fee in terms of the quality of the player is absurd and almost everyone knows that.

Liverpool got lucky with Salah, but do you honestly believe that 60ish million could buy a player that everyone would believe would they'd be one of the best players in the league? To buy a player that consensus would put as a top 5 or top 10 player, you'd have to spend much more than 60.

 

[Evilo]

That's because PSG are dumb and held onto him when they should've known he wanted to leave. There is risk on the team holding the player, not the team acquiring the player. There are probably about 2-3 clubs out there that can wait a player out and bank on them going to them for free, everyone else would need to pay the fee or risk them going elsewhere. Real and Barca have that power, and Bayern to an extent with German players.

Chelsea had no chance at getting Pulisic for free or at a discount, unless that was the only club that Pulisic wanted to be at.

Rabiot OF COURSE told them he wanted to stay. That's what players do. That's beyond naive.
You think Pulisic didn't consider leaving on a free? Of course he did. And not many better teams than Chelsea would have knocked at the door.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It is simply not the case.
I feel people need to understand there are plenty of good players available for cheap.
Lyon bought Ndombele for 8M. He's twice the player Pulisic is.

It's beyond ridiculous that people act as if everyone needs to pay 60M to get a good player. Scouts would laugh at this statement.

That's not what I'm saying. You can definitely find stars and scout them, but the big clubs buy established young players or established stars. The market for those players has been this big for awhile now.

 

[Deficient Mode]

It is simply not the case.
I feel people need to understand there are plenty of good players available for cheap.
Lyon bought Ndombele for 8M. He's twice the player Pulisic is.

It's beyond ridiculous that people act as if everyone needs to pay 60M to get a good player. Scouts would laugh at this statement.

But this argument is in tension with the notion that Pulisic's fee was inflated because he's American. Big clubs simply don't take chances on talented players of any nationality at small clubs and wait to pay big money for them after they've made it at the likes of Lyon or Dortmund.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Rabiot OF COURSE told them he wanted to stay. That's what players do. That's beyond naive.
You think Pulisic didn't consider leaving on a free? Of course he did. And not many better teams than Chelsea would have knocked at the door.

And clubs should just blindly trust players at every word? Now that's naïve. It's what the Islanders did with Tavares in hockey, but sports executives are over-confident of convincing players to stay with the team.

The risk is with the team holding, not the team acquiring. Dortmund would've been motivated to sell in the summer, but Chelsea wanted to avoid a bidding war, so they paid a bit of a premium, not even that much of one IMO.