swipe right wrote:Özim wrote:swipe right wrote:Some of you morons need to understand how salary negotiations work. Ozil gets 350k because he sells more merch than the rest of the squad combined.
Well no, Ozil gets 350k because both him and Sanchez were going to walk away for nothing and the club couldn't face the backlash that would have come had that happened, so they gave him 350k, considering his contract was up in the summer he held all the cards.
Not sure about the merchandise these days, maybe a few years ago, but now his stock has fallen massively, Aubameyang I would think is the most popular.
I don’t have the data to back it up but Ozil has probably sold more shirts in his time at the club than any player in Arsenal’s history. He is a true global superstar that bridges the European world and the Muslim world. Even today when he is a fading light in terms of performance his appeal is massive. You see him on any PL of EL poster featuring Arsenal along with Laca and Auba. Player salaries are calculated on how much revenue the club expects to earn through the life of their contract. Gazidis wasn’t a mug to just hand him 350k.
Seems you're way off the mark.....again!
Kit deals are not traditional sponsorship deals – they are licensing deals, which enable the kit manufacturers to use the club’s brand to sell branded apparel. Clubs will traditionally receive an annual fee – for example, Manchester United receives £75 million per year from Adidas, Chelsea receives an initial £60 million per year from Nike, and Arsenal receives £30 million per year from Puma – and then 10-15% of the revenue the kit manufacturer generates from shirt sales.
"Furthermore, signing a star player doesn’t lead to as many new kits being sold as one might think. While there will usually be an uptick in shirts sold in the market where the player came from, it is more often the case that those who were already planning on purchasing a shirt will choose to get the new player’s name on the back, rather than an existing player.
The kit deal is often a football club’s most lucrative sponsorship, and for good reason. The manufacturers aren’t paying the clubs to have a tiny logo emblazoned on the front of the club’s shirt – rather, they’re making an investment that will yield an excellent return. As an example, Adidas CEO Herbert Hainer projected that Adidas would earn £1.5 billion from its ten-year, £750 million deal with Manchester United.
Why don’t football clubs simply manufacture their own shirts and keep 100% of the profits? The simple answer is because they’re football clubs, not kit manufacturers. They don’t have the global distribution networks necessary to manufacture, ship, and sell hundreds of thousands, or in some cases, millions of shirts each year. Many clubs even outsource the logistics of their online shops, which are miniscule operations compared to what is required to manufacture, distribute and market kits on a global scale.
"Football clubs don’t have access to these resources. Even the largest football clubs in the world are comparatively tiny businesses when it comes to the likes of Adidas and Nike. To put it in perspective, Nike has earned substantially more in three months (nearly £7 billion for March, April, and May 2017) than Chelsea have earned in its 112-year history."
