Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

Football meets finance

Edition VI

Football meets finance Edition VI
Football meets finance Edition VI

The authors

Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Wittekindstr. 1A 45131 Essen Germany Telefon +49 (0)201 2421 21956 arnd.hovemann@de.ey.com

Ernst & Young LLP 1 More London Place London SE1 2AF UK Telephone +44 (0)207 951 2000 npatey@uk.ey.com

SE1 2AF UK Telephone +44 (0)207 951 2000 npatey@uk.ey.com Prof. Christoph Ehrhardt Partner Ernst & Young

Prof. Christoph Ehrhardt Partner Ernst & Young Real Estate GmbH

Ehrhardt Partner Ernst & Young Real Estate GmbH Neil Patey Partner Transaction Advisory Services Ernst

Neil Patey Partner Transaction Advisory Services Ernst & Young LLP

Partner Transaction Advisory Services Ernst & Young LLP Arnd Hovemann Manager Ernst & Young GmbH

Arnd Hovemann Manager Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Manager Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Alastair Nuttall Partner Assurance Ernst & Young LLP

Alastair Nuttall Partner Assurance Ernst & Young LLP

Foreword Content Foreword 3 The main findings 4 Competitive balance in the major European leagues

Foreword

Content

Foreword

3

The main findings

4

Competitive balance in the major European leagues

5

Balanced competition versus international success

38

Football has proven over the past few years to be a critical content provider for the media industry and increasingly attractive to the telecoms operators. As trusted advisors, we are happy to contribute to the continuing discussion of media rights and the impact on competitive balance.

Bruno Perrin, EMEIA Media & Entertainment Leader, Ernst & Young

About Ernst & Young’s Global Media & Entertainment Center Whether it’s the traditional press and broadcast media, or the multitude of new media, audiences now have more choice than ever before. For media and entertainment companies, integration and adaptability are becoming critical success factors. Ernst & Young’s Global Media & Entertainment Center brings together a worldwide team of professionals to help you achieve your potential — a team with deep technical experience in providing assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The Center works to anticipate market trends, identify the implications and develop points of view on relevant industry issues. Ultimately it enables us to help you meet your goals and compete more effectively. It’s how Ernst & Young makes a difference.

The main findings

Europe’s top leagues are becoming more predictable The last 15 years have seen clear signs of a sharp drop in competitive balance in the five most important European leagues. Leading clubs in most countries are increasingly pulling ahead of the rest of the pack, achieving more consistent results from season to season. One fundamental reason for this is the growing gap in income between the leading clubs and the rest of the league.

The Champions League in particular divides the leagues into two groups In the past, the growing gap between rich and poor clubs has been exacerbated by the ongoing participation of top clubs in the Champions League. Payouts in connection with this competition have risen sharply, particularly since the change in format at the turn of the millennium. A reform of the distribution of revenues to benefit non-Champions League participants seems urgent to end this trend.

Bundesliga and Ligue 1 are by far the most exciting and diverse There are significant differences in the competitive situation of the leagues in the top five countries. According to our compre- hensive analysis using a range of indicators to determine competitive balance in the national leagues, the leagues in Germany and France are the most balanced by a wide margin. While the leagues in Italy and Spain trail well behind, the Premier League in England is by far the most predictable. One

League in England is by far the most predictable. One main reason for the positive distinction

main reason for the positive distinction of the Bundesliga and Ligue 1 in France is the central marketing of broadcasting rights and the resulting relatively even distribution of revenue between clubs. The high volume of money spent by investors in England has had a significant impact on competition.

Level financial playing field required UEFA (Union des Associations Européennes de Football) has already announced the creation of a commission charged with drawing up measures to create a level financial playing field among European clubs. This is to be based on German licensing practice, another factor in the competitive balance of the Bundesliga. This would be beneficial in terms of competitive balance at both a national and international level. The central marketing of broadcasting rights in Italy and Spain would even out competition in those countries. This is scheduled to be introduced in Italy in 2010.

More exciting national competition is detrimental to international success (and vice versa) Top German and French clubs generate significantly less revenue from broadcasting rights than the leading clubs in Italy and Spain, where rights are not marketed centrally. Moreover, some leading European clubs record high losses that are compensated by the clubs’ owners or presidents out of their own pockets. This is again to the detriment of clubs that finance their squads from internally generated cash flows. This goes a long way towards explaining the poor performance of German (and French) teams in the Champions League. However, it also shows that an exciting and diverse national competition generally comes at the expense of international success and vice versa.

Competitive balance in the major European leagues

Background This year’s study focuses on analyzing competitive balance (CB) in the five most important European leagues (England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain). This is to update the results of the Football meets finance IV study to take into account the last two seasons. Two significant additions have also been made. Firstly, the study now examines individual match days in order to investigate whether the situation in the respective countries regarding competition develops differently towards the end of the season. In addition, a range of analytical instruments place an increased focus on the dynamic team component.

Significance and aspects of CB In team sports, CB refers to the equilibrium of the sporting competition between different leagues of one sport or within a league or competition. A long-term analysis of CB reveals two components.

empirical evidence. Studies confirm that CB – or more precisely, the resulting uncertainty of a match – has a positive impact on the number of spectators at stadiums and television viewers. In his oft- cited report dealing with European sport published in 2006, the former Portuguese minister for sport José Luís Arnaut sums it up best: “An ‘unbalanced’ league will not maximize the number of its spectators/ viewers.” 1

within a branch of industry. Although the teams compete against each other for titles and rankings, they also have to cooperate in order to maintain the excitement of the competition (and therefore its appeal). However, as will be shown in the following, there are a number of factors that influence the situation within a league with regard to competition, jeopardizing CB within a league.

“An ‘unbalanced’ league will not maximize the number of its spectators/viewers.” José Luís Arnaut

What is referred to as the “seasonal component” concerns the competitive situation within one season. Here, the focus

Moreover, other studies indicate three risks stemming from unbalanced leagues:

is on the different performance of teams within one season. A distinction can be

(1)

Progressively increasing gap in the

made, for example, between uncertainties regarding the outcome of a match, the season, the championship, the relegation battle or qualification for international

(2)

financial situation of individual clubs and the tendency to overinvest in squads Risk of insolvency of weaker clubs

club competitions (UEFA Euro League, UEFA Champions League). The focus

(3)

Risk of top clubs leaving and reorganizing into a competing league

is on the uncertainty of the outcome, which corresponds to the excitement of the competition. The “team component” concerns the development of a team’s performance over the course of a set period of time (several seasons). This deals with the question of whether individual

The creation of the Nordic League, an annual tournament for the best teams from the Scandinavian countries, and the controversial inclusion of the Scottish teams Celtic and Rangers in the Premier League are current examples of such a split.

teams can maintain their performance from season to season. The focus is on the degree of variation within a league. CB is often considered a key success factor for sports leagues. The central argument underlying this thesis is supported by

One peculiarity of sport is that teams that are organized within a competitive structure (a league) have a fundamental interest in the competitive strength and “survival” of their competitors, in contrast to a company

CB is therefore of crucial importance to football and is justifiably at the center of public interest. Current reports and contributions to the debate by José Luís Arnaut and Ivo Belet as well as the White Paper on Sport from the EU Commission led by the EU Commissioner for Culture and Sport Ján Figel highlight the weighty nature of the issue.

1 Arnaut, J. L. (2006). Independent European Sport Review 2006.

Influential factors and instruments for maintaining CB CB is primarily dependent on the distribution of player quality and thus on the financial clout of individual clubs. There can be little doubt that a club with strong purchasing power – assuming it acts effectively and efficiently – can obtain a sporting advantage over financially weaker clubs by recruiting players. This is shown here in the diagram, which juxtaposes expenses for players (according to the press) with total points for the 2008–09 season in the Bundesliga. It therefore stands to reason that the earnings position of clubs is of central importance to CB. Another aspect stems from differences in the propensity to use external financing for investment in squads.

In addition to factors with a direct impact on CB, factors with an indirect influence can also be identified. These include unequal access to public infrastructure funded by federal, state or municipal governments. If public funding (e.g. for the construction of stadiums) is not provided equally to all clubs, differing levels of capital may be available for players. A lack of integrity on the part of members or substance abuse can distort competition, affecting CB. Factors affecting CB also include aspects with a direct link to the sporting competition, such as relegation rules or the size of the league. Recently, the so-called

Bundesliga: More money, more goals

(Diagram 1)

80

70 60 50 40 30 20 Points in 2008–09 season
70
60
50
40
30
20
Points in 2008–09 season

10

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

Personnel expenses for players

Logarithmic trend Source for personnel expenses: press

“6+5” rule has come to the fore in the public domain. There is heated discussion over whether limiting the number of foreign players in a club’s starting squad for league games could improve competition in the national leagues. FIFA’s view in this regard is clear: “6+5 is all about putting the ‘contest’ back into competitions.”

“6+5 is all about putting the ‘contest’ back into competitions.” Jérôme Champagne, FIFA Director of International Relations

Some suggestions for improving the game

of football would usually end up harming CB

if implemented. These include introducing

a fourth referee, introducing video replay,

enlarging the goal, putting a chip in the ball, etc. These developments would eliminate chance, meaning that stronger teams would prevail more often, to the detriment of CB. There is a wide range of instruments available for maintaining CB, which, at the very least, act on the direct factors discussed above. The following are some examples:

Instruments for maintaining CB:

Salary caps

Distribution of revenue (e.g., broadcasting revenue)

Licensing procedure

Table 1

These instruments have become the frequent subject of the discussion on competition in football leagues. Please refer to the study Football meets finance IV for further information on this subject. Our Football meets finance III study focused on UEFA’s club licensing procedure. The extent to which the oft-cited 50+1 rule in Germany, which prevents investors from gaining a majority interest in a German club, helps maintain CB is at the very least questionable.

Measuring CB „Win rates”, “league rankings“ and “points“ can be used as indicators in instruments to measure competitive balance in sporting

competitions. “Win rates“ are primarily used to measure CB in North American leagues, where games can only be won or lost. However, win rates can produce a

distorted image in sports that can end in a draw (such as football). “Rankings“ are a suitable indicator for measuring CB within

a league. However, it makes comparison

between divisions difficult, although the rankings are used in connection with another CB instrument. If “points“ are used to measure CB, results from the time when two points were awarded for a win (in France up to and including 1993–94, in Germany, Spain and Italy up to and including the 1994–95 season) should be adjusted to the three-point system to enable inter-seasonal comparison. The problem with this approach, however, is that the rankings of certain teams from the time when the two-point system was in place are changed as a result of the adjustment. Overall, it should be noted that all indicators have certain advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration when using them according to the circumstances of the individual case.

By analogy to general empirical competition analysis, various measurements of variance and concentration are used in the analysis of the competitive situation

in sporting leagues. A detailed picture of

the competitive situation within a group of

teams in the same league is provided by the concentration rate (CR). This indicates the share of the total number of points awarded in a league that is obtained by the

top clubs. The CRs of the best five clubs in

a league are usually calculated in order to

determine CB in sporting leagues. The CR is

intuitive and takes account of the fact that these clubs are able to generate additional income from international competition (which tends to reduce CB). The indicator can be modified in order to take into account changing circumstances within a league. The ratio of concentration rates (RCR) is defined as the ratio of “actual“ CR to “ideal“ CR (of a completely balanced league). For all previously described indicators, the higher the value, the less balanced the league is. Because this is not intuitive (high values are often seen as better), it is possible to calculate the inverse value of the RCR. If this value is compared with the value for a completely balanced league, this gives the empirically tested EY level of excitement, as described in detail in the study “Football meets finance IV”.

From a competition economics perspective, however, a league is also deemed unbalanced if the same teams are always competing either for the title/ qualifying positions or against relegation. The study of this component was taken up by the scientific community, where it is referred to as “dynamic competition analysis”. The team component can be modeled based on the season standard deviation (SD) of the total points obtained by each team from the average points reached by the team over an observation period. The number of teams in a particular cluster (such as the top five) over a particular period of time is also often used to model the team component. The higher the value, the more balanced the competition.

Are these saying the same thing? Maybe:

this study uses a wide range of indicators and encompasses many diverse factors. The discussion begins with the excitement value, as well as the SD of the total points scored by the top five teams over the last 15 years. In order to give a more detailed impression of the competitive situation with regard to team identities, the number of teams involved in the respective sub- competitions (title, CL qualification, relegation/promotion) is then analyzed in detail. The examination of the CB’s development towards the end of the season relates to the number of teams that still have a stake in a relevant sub-competition.

number of teams that still have a stake in a relevant sub-competition. 8 Ernst & Young

The competitive situation in the top five leagues

The seasonal component The level of excitement factor already developed in the study Football meets finance IV is based on the share of points held by the five top-ranked clubs in relation to the entire league. The level of excitement is based on the inverse values of the RCR indicator. The question is asked

how close any given league is to being completely balanced based on these values (represented by 100% on the y-axis). In a completely balanced league, all teams would have the same number of points at the end of a season, while in a completely unbalanced league the best team would win all of its matches and the worst would lose all of them (i.e. scoring zero points). This illustrates that such extreme values are purely theoretical.

Owing to the strong seasonal fluctuations in values, the moving average is calculated for the respective countries and its development presented. The moving average is defined as the average value for the last five seasons in each case. The higher the percentage value reached by a league, the greater the approximation to a completely balanced league (i.e. the more exciting the competition).

Seasonal component: excitement in decline

Measured using the ratio of points scored by the best five teams to the rest of the league. The higher the value, the more exciting the league. (Diagram 2)

65

60

55 50 France 45 40 Spain Germany 35 30 Italy England Numbers given are percentages
55
50
France
45
40
Spain
Germany
35
30
Italy
England
Numbers given are percentages

25

20

1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09

Moving five-year average Germany Moving five-year average England Moving five-year average France Moving five-year average Italy Moving five-year average Spain

The (average) gap between the leagues was very small in the 1998–99 season. Based on the measure, a similar competitive situation predominated in the five leagues in this season, since the top five clubs in each of the countries analyzed had a similar points advantage over the rest of the league. The values for the individual countries drift apart after this point. Only in France has there been a slight increase in the level of excitement (i.e. decrease in the share of points won by the top five clubs) over the last 15 years. However, the last two French seasons – not covered by Football meets finance IV – also reveal a similar decline in excitement. According to the measure, the degree of excitement in France has fallen sharply over the last two years. However, this strong downward trend is still relatively weak when depicted as part of a five-year average.

Ligue 1 most exciting

15-year average of level of excitement (Diagram 3)

46.6 43.5 41.1 34.8 34.4 France Spain Germany Italy England Figures given as a percentage
46.6
43.5
41.1
34.8
34.4
France
Spain
Germany
Italy
England
Figures given as a percentage

In the other countries, excitement has been falling for the last 15 seasons. While the fall in excitement in Germany and Spain has been relatively slow, the measure shows

in England has nosedived once again since

measure, the French league is the most

that the competitive situation in the Italian

study IV, excitement in Italy has stabilized at

balanced and has the highest level of

and German leagues in particular has deteriorated drastically. Compared to the

a

relatively low level.

excitement, followed by Spain and Germany. The Italian and English leagues are least

overall league, the five best clubs in these

If

the development of the curves is

exciting. In both countries, the five best

countries were able to win an increasing share in points leading to a sharp decline in excitement. While the excitement value

presented over a 15-year average, the differences between the leagues become more pronounced. According to the

teams are on average the furthest ahead of their competitors in the rest of the league.

The team component As already discussed, the team component must be considered alongside the seasonal component. From a competition-economics perspective, a league is also deemed unbalanced if the same teams are always competing either for the title/qualifying positions or against relegation. Team components can be modeled based on the season SD of the total points obtained by each team and the average points obtained by a team over an observation period. The higher the value of this component, the more varied a league is. Wide deviations of individual teams over the years effectively mean that the clubs competing for the top league positions are constantly changing. However, the value is lower if the top five clubs are able to consistently reproduce their results.

Variation in the performance of the top five clubs is particularly high in Italy. However, the impact of the sanctions imposed for 2005–06 season must also be taken into account. Consequently, the points achieved by Juventus in the 2005–06 season were interpolated to the 2006–07 season, thus ignoring the relegation that was enforced on the club. Otherwise the results would be heavily distorted. By contrast, adjustments were not made for the points penalty imposed on AC Milan (eight points) and

Te am c omponent: mono to ny in Spain

Measured using the SD of the top five teams from their average points total. The higher the value, the more varied the league. (Diagram 4)

10.3 9.6 9.4 9.3 7.6 Italy Germany England France Spain Numbers given are point totals
10.3
9.6
9.4
9.3
7.6
Italy
Germany
England
France
Spain
Numbers given are point totals 15-year average

S.S. Lazio (three points) in the 2006–07 season. Adjustments (i.e. addition) to take these penalties into account would further reduce the relatively high average seasonal SD. The other placings are occupied by Germany, England, France and Spain in that order.

Interest value of sub-competitions Do certain teams dominate sub-competi- tions, or is it always the same teams competing for the title or Champions League qualification, or fighting relegation? Data from the last 15 seasons is used to show: (1) the title-holders, (2) Champions League qualifiers, (3) relegated teams and (4) promoted teams in the separate countries. This is to examine whether there are country-specific peculiarities.

examine whether there are country-specific peculiarities. Competition for the title With six teams holding the title

Competition for the title With six teams holding the title in recent years, France and Germany have the greatest number of different teams, followed by Spain (five), Italy (five) and England (four). While the series of titles held by the most successful German team, FC Bayern München, has been repeatedly interspersed with other national champions, relatively long periods where the title has been

dominated by one team have been seen in recent years in France (Olympique Lyonnais: seven), Italy (Inter: four) and England (Manchester United: three). On the basis of these results, the competition for the title in Germany is considered the most varied. Spain and France come second and third respectively, followed by Italy and England.

# Champion

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1 FC Bayern München

   

x

 

x

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

 

x

 

8

2 Borussia Dortmund

x

x

         

x

             

3

3 1. FC Kaiserslautern

     

x

                     

1

4 Werder Bremen

                 

x

         

1

5 VfB Stuttgart

                       

x

   

1

6 VfL Wolfsburg

                           

x

1

Table 2: Title-holders in the last 15 years in Germany.

1 Table 2: Title-holders in the last 15 years in Germany. # Champion 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97

# Champion

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1 Manchester United

 

x

x

 

x

x

x

 

x

     

x

x

x

9

2 Arsenal

     

x

     

x

 

x

         

3

3 Chelsea FC

                   

x

x

     

2

4 Blackburn Rovers

x

                           

1

Table 3: Title-holders in the last 15 years in England.

# Champion 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

# Champion

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1 Juventus

x

 

x

x

     

x

x

 

x

       

6

2 Inter

                     

x

x

x

x

4

3 AC Milan

 

x

   

x

       

x

         

3

4 S.S. Lazio

         

x

                 

1

5 AS Roma

           

x

               

1

Table 4: Title-holders in the last 15 years in Italy.

1 Table 4: Title-holders in the last 15 years in Italy. # Champion 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97

# Champion

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1 Olympique Lyonnais

             

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

7

2 FC Nantes

x

         

x

               

2

3 AS Monaco FC

   

x

   

x

                 

2

4 FC Girondins de Bordeaux

       

x

                 

x

2

5 AJ Auxerre

 

x

                         

1

6 RC Lens

     

x

                     

1

Table 5: Title-holders in the last 15 years in France.

1 Table 5: Title-holders in the last 15 years in France. # Champion 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97

# Champion

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1 Real Madrid CF

x

 

x

     

x

 

x

     

x

x

 

6

2 FC Barcelona

     

x

x

         

x

x

   

x

5

3 Valencia CF

             

x

 

x

         

2

4 Club Atlético de Madrid

 

x

                         

1

5 RC Deportivo La Coruña

         

x

                 

1

Table 6: Title-holders in the last 15 years in Spain.

The competition for Champions League qualification

In each of the countries examined in this study, there is a small group of clubs that have qualified many times within the last

15 years. The clubs that most often

qualified for the Champions League were:

Manchester United (14 times), Real Madrid CF (14), FC Barcelona (12), FC Bayern München (12), Arsenal (12), Juventus (12), Olympique Lyonnais (11), AC Milan (10) and Inter (10).

The following diagram shows the unequal concentration of individual teams with

regard to qualification for the Champions League. It looks at the three clubs that most often qualified for the Champions League at a national level over the last

15 years in the respective countries. The

ratio of success is the ratio of the maximum possible frequency of qualification for the Champions League to the actual frequency. The theoretical maximum frequency is the product of the “number of years examined” and the “number of teams examined”

– 15 (years) 3 (teams) = 45. Country- specific circumstances are ignored in the interest of comparability between countries. The value for the theoretical maximum frequency of qualification for the Champions League is assumed to be the same (three) for convenience.

While, in the course of 15 years, the three clubs that qualified most often in France and Germany accounted for 47% and 56% respectively of the total qualification places between them, the same figure for Italy, Spain and England comes to over 70%. Increasing CRs with regard to Champions

Sub-competition Champions League qualification

Concentration ratios of the three clubs that most frequently qualify for the CL (Diagram 5)

75.6

71.1 71.1 55.6 46.7 France Germany Italy Spain England Numbers given are percentages 15-year average
71.1
71.1
55.6
46.7
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
England
Numbers given are percentages
15-year average

League qualification have been observed across all leagues with the passage of time. This can be interpreted as reflecting the fact that, particularly in recent years, the same teams have been qualifying for the Champions League within the national leagues. This concentration becomes extremely clear when considering a shorter period in England. The three teams that most frequently qualified for the Champions League were able to qualify every year without fail in the last five years. The CR for the last five years is therefore 1.00. Even though this analysis is aimed at the three teams that most frequently

qualify, it should be noted that Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool have occupied all national qualification places for the last six seasons (including the current one).

In a comparison of leagues in terms of CB, France came first, ahead of Germany. Italy and Spain are joint third. England is in last place.

The following tables give a detailed over- view of Champions League qualification in the last 15 seasons.

# CL qualifiers 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01

#

CL

qualifiers

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1

Bayern München

   

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

12

2

Borussia Dortmund

x

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

o

           

7

3

Bayer Leverkusen

   

x

 

x

x

x

x

 

x

         

6

4

Werder Bremen

                 

x

x

x

x

x

 

5

5

FC Schalke 04

           

x

     

x

 

x

o

 

4

6

VfB Stuttgart

               

x

     

x

 

o

3

7

Hamburger SV

         

x

         

x

     

2

8

1. FC Kaiserslautern

     

x

                     

1

9

Hertha BSC Berlin

       

x

                   

1

10

1860 München

         

o

                 

1

11

VfL Wolfsburg

                           

x

1

Table 7: Distribution of national Champions League qualification places in Germany in the last 15 years (examined: year of qualification, x = direct national qualification for the group phase of the following season; o = national qualification without reaching the group phase of the Champions League for the following season, or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)).

or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)). # CL qualifiers 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97

#

CL

qualifiers

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1

Manchester United

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

14

2

Arsenal

     

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

12

3

Chelsea FC

       

x

     

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

8

4

Liverpool FC

           

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

8

5

Newcastle United

   

x

       

x

o

           

3

6

Blackburn Rovers

x

                           

1

7

Leeds United

           

x

               

1

8

Everton FC

                   

o

       

1

Table 8: Distribution of national Champions League qualification places in England in the last 15 years (examined: year of qualification, x = direct national qualification for the group phase of the following season; o = national qualification without reaching the group phase of the Champions League for the following season, or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)).

# CL qualifiers 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01

#

CL

qualifiers

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1

Juventus

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

   

x

x

12

2

AC Milan

 

x

   

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

10

3

Inter

     

x

 

o

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

10

4

AS Roma

           

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

x

 

6

5

S.S. Lazio

       

x

x

x

 

x

     

x

   

5

6

AC Fiorentina

       

x

           

o

 

x

o

4

7

Parma FC

   

x

 

o

 

o

               

3

8

Udinese Calcio

                   

x

       

1

Table 9: Distribution of national Champions League qualification places in Italy in the last 15 years (examined: year of qualification, x = direct national qualification for the group phase of the following season; o = national qualification without reaching the group phase of the Champions League for the following season, or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)).

or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)). # CL qualifiers 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97

#

CL

qualifiers

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1

Olympique Lyonnais

       

o

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

o

11

2

Olympique Marseille

       

x

     

x

     

x

x

x

5

3

AS Monaco FC

   

x

   

x

   

x

x

o

       

5

4

FC Girondins de Bordeaux

       

x

           

x

 

x

x

4

5

Paris St. Germain

   

x

   

x

     

x

         

3

6

OSC Lille

           

x

     

x

x

     

3

7

FC Nantes

x

         

x

               

2

8

AJ Auxerre

 

x

         

x

             

2

9

Racing Club Lens

     

x

     

x

             

2

10

FC Metz

     

o

                     

1

11

Toulouse FC

                       

o

   

1

Table 10: Distribution of national Champions League qualification places in France in the last 15 years (examined: year of qualification, x = direct national qualification for the group phase of the following season; o = national qualification without reaching the group phase of the Champions League for the following season, or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)).

# CL qualifiers 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01

#

CL

qualifiers

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Total

1

Real Madrid CF

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

14

2

FC Barcelona

   

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

12

3

Valencia CF

       

x

x

 

x

 

x

 

x

x

   

6

4

RC Deportivo La Coruña

         

x

x

x

x

x

         

5

5

Club Atlético de Madrid

 

x

                     

x

o

3

6

FC

Villarreal

                   

x

   

x

 

2

7

Real CD Mallorca

       

o

 

x

               

2

8

FC Sevilla

                       

x

 

x

2

9

Real S. San Sebastián

           

x

               

1

10

Celta Vigo

               

x

           

1

11

Betis Sevilla

                   

x

       

1

12

Atletic Bilbao

     

x

                     

1

13

CA Osasuna

                     

o

     

1

Table 11: Distribution of national Champions League qualification places in Spain in the last 15 years (examined: year of qualification, x = direct national qualification for the group phase of the following season; o = national qualification without reaching the group phase of the Champions League for the following season, or qualification has not yet taken place (2008–09)).

Fight for promotion and to avoid relegation The 45 promotions and relegations seen in Germany over the last 15 years are distributed among 25 teams. Of the

45 promotions, 12 were relegated from

the Bundesliga within a year, and 7 within two years. The average rate of “swift relegation” (number of promoted teams relegated within two years of reaching the top league as a percentage of total number of promoted teams) is 42.2%.

In France, the 43 promotions and

45 relegations seen in the last 15 years

are distributed among 33 teams. Of these

promotions, 14 were relegated from the

top league within one year and 6 within two years. The swift relegation rate is 43.5%. In Italy, the 54 promotions and

52 relegations seen in the last 15 years

are distributed among 38 teams. Of these promotions, 13 were relegated from the top league within one year and 11 within two years. The swift relegation rate is 44.4%.

In Spain, the 46 promotions and 48 relega- tions seen in the last 15 years are also distributed among 33 teams. Of these promotions, 16 were relegated from the

top league within one year and 8 within two years. The swift relegation rate is 52.2%. In England, the 44 promotions and

46 relegations seen in the last 15 years

are distributed among 34 teams. Of these promotions, 21 were relegated from the top league within one year and 5 within two years. The average swift relegation rate is

59.1%.

Relegation battle sub-competition

Average percentage of “swift relegations” over a period of 15 years (Diagram 6)

59.1

52.2 44.4 43.5 42.2 Germany France Italy Spain England Numbers given are percentages 15-year average
52.2
44.4
43.5
42.2
Germany
France
Italy
Spain
England
Numbers given are percentages
15-year average

The diagram above gives a comparative overview of the average national swift relegation rates.

In Spain and England in particular, when looking at the values for the last 15 years, the chances for a promoted team to be swiftly relegated again is very high. In Germany and France, on the other hand, promoted teams have a much higher chance of establishing themselves in the top league, at least for the medium term. This can, for example, be explained by the fact that broadcasting revenue in these two

countries is distributed between the first and second leagues. This reduces the gap in the financial means available to the “badly” ranked clubs in the first league and the “well” ranked clubs in the second league. Promotion therefore entails less financial strain than in other countries such as England, where there is a great discrepancy between the first and second leagues with regard to television broadcast revenue. The following tables give a detailed overview of the promoted and relegated teams as well as the points they scored in the year following promotion.

  Promoted/ 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02
 

Promoted/

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Relegations

by team

Promotions

by team

#

relegated team

                             

#

#

1

1. FC Kaiserslautern

     

68

                     

2

 

1

2

1. FC Köln

           

46

   

23

 

30

   

39

4

 

4

3

1. FC Nürnberg

       

37

   

34

   

38

       

3

 

4

4

1. FSV Mainz 05

                   

43

         

1

 

2

5

1860 München

                               

1

 

0

6

Alemannia Aachen

                       

34

     

1

 

1

7

Arminia Bielefeld

   

40

   

30

   

36

 

40

       

4

 

4

8

Borussia Mönchengladbach

             

39

           

31

2

 

2

9

Dynamo Dresden

                               

1

 

0

10

Eintracht Frankfurt

       

37

       

32

 

36

     

3

 

3

11

Energie Cottbus

           

39

         

41

   

2

 

2

12

FC St. Pauli

 

38

         

22

             

2

 

2

13

Fortuna Düsseldorf

 

40

                           

1

 

1

14

Hannover 96

               

43

           

0

 

1

15

Hansa Rostock

 

49

                     

30

 

2

 

2

16

Hertha BSC

     

43

                     

0

 

1

17

Karlsruher SC

                         

43

 

2

 

1

18

KFC Uerdingen 05

                             

1

 

0

19

MSV Duisburg

   

4

               

27

 

29

 

4

 

3

20

SC Freiburg

       

39

       

38

         

3

 

3

21

SpVgg Unterhaching

         

44

                 

1

 

1

22

SSV Ulm 1846

         

35

                 

1

 

1

23

TSG 1899 Hoffenheim

                           

55

0

 

1

24

VfL Bochum

   

53

     

27

 

45

     

45

   

4

 

4

25

VfL Wolfsburg

     

39

                     

0

 

1

 

# Promotions by season

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

   

Table 12: Teams promoted and relegated in the last 15 years in Germany (grey: relegation, yellow: promotion, figure: points scored in the first year following promotion).

  Promoted/ 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02
<
 

Promoted/

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

Relegations

by team

Promotions

by team

#

relegated team

                             

#

#

 

1 Barnsley FC

     

35

                       

1

 

1

 

2 Birmingham City

               

48

       

35

 

2

 

3

 

3 Blackburn Rovers

             

46

               

1

 

1

 

4 Bolton Wanderers

 

29

 

40

     

40

             

2

 

3

 

5 Bradford City

         

36

                   

1

 

1

 

6 Burnley

                             

0

 

1

 

7 Charlton Athletic

       

36

 

52

               

2

 

2

 

8 Coventry City

                               

1

 

0