Talk:Forbes list of the most valuable football clubs

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Validity and verification

This table is wrong! Manchester City are not valued at 383 million, and ranked 20th. Sheikh Mansoor purchased the club in 2008 for £360 million, and today is valued at 1.92 Billion, which would rank them 6th. Source - forbes.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgates1960 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the information in this article come from? Only the over US$100m section has a reference, and the data in the link isn't even the same as that written here! We really need to have some references in this article, especially as it is simply a statement of revenues. We can't be using this list to source claims in other articles when the facts here could be just made up! -Toon⁰⁵ 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been. Newcastle United richer than Juventus and Arsenal, and there is another article on wikipedia which shows of the 20 richest clubs in the world and the information is completely different. See, Deloitte Football Money League. The sunder king 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes only provides reference for the top 20 or so, and even then they are not in the right order. The rest of the list may have just been made up. So I have added the template {{Hoax}} to the article. The sunder king 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to nominate this article for deletion, as there are no sources, and having just read the Deloitte Money List and forbes etc. There don't seem to be any sources which confirm the list, or figures. -Toon⁰⁵ 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the prod tag, not least because no reason is given. Since this list (albeit in a shortened form) can be updated and verified thanks to references such as [1], the arguments here do not apply, although the cleanup tags remain. I'll work a little on correcting the data though. Qwghlm 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it now uses the Forbes data as a basis. Further citable additions are welcome. Qwghlm 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QPR

Is it not true that since QPR's take over by the two F1 guys that they are richer than Chelsea? Y2J RKO (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A company is not necessarily wealthy just because its major shareholders are. Kevin McE (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information

This page is false and its refrences should be verfied since everything stated is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.167.93 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, debt as a percentage of value is also meaningless. It tells us nothing. Look at any successful firm and if you find that debt-equity ratios are never close to zero. Also, what is the value? Is it equity value or something else? It says market value and links to an article about walrasian auctions. Nothing is sourced either.78.86.145.114 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's also linked from "richest clubs", and the header contains the word "richest", when it is clearly a list by "highes value". there should be a major fix or even DELETION of this article. 91.15.145.173 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Income

I realise that the phrase was simply copy-and-pasted directly from the Forbes page, but can anyone explain how Income can be negative? Income growth could be negative (declining income), income - expenditure can be negative ( loss-making activity), but how can income, the amount of new financial asset in an accounting period, possibly be less than zero? I refer you to the definition used by the International Accounting Standards Board:

Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants. Kevin McE (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Operating" income can be negative. I'll refer you to the wikipedia article on on it, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Operating_income 78.86.145.114 (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an ENGVAR issue then? I believe that this is what would be referred to as profitability before taxes in UK reporting. If it is ENGVAR, which version should we use? The Forbes source indicates US English, the teams involved point to UK English. Either way, a note that clarifies the differences in accounting vocab seems necessary. The current footnote refers to revenue, not nett revenue. Kevin McE (talk)

Explanation

I am quite good at English, but this article isn't very easy to understand. I don't know what "Debt as %of value" or "% change on year" means. My point is that there should be a little better explanation on something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therifas (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

Forbes has updated its Richest football club table for 2008 (see above link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshdhaliwal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the finding, I have updated the page now. A18919 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A18919 (talk • contribs)

Historic data?

Why are the rankings from previous years not kept in the article? We can have a section for historic data. If there is no good reason against it, I will look through the article's history and add it. -- P199 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Job done. -- P199 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2020 is missing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Deloitte Football Money League

This tag has been here for a while but no comments or discussion on it. So let's get this over with:

Oppose. While similar, these lists focus on different financial aspects of the teams. -- P199 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one cares, so let's remove the tag. No merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe (everything you see in) Wikipedia...

This is the link to the actual 2010 list and ranking: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html It seems someone has had their fun with this page... I tried to correct the ranking, and added the link to the references. So if I missed an error, somebody else can easily do a crosscheck. --109.250.103.247 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 data

Forbes has evidently got together their data for this year, but rather than publish a table, it is all over a set of photo captions. The info has less data, and is a b****r to collate as it stands. Has anyone actually found this tabulated? Kevin McE (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea

Didn't know Chelsea were a Spanish team... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.89.38 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't find anywhere in the article that suggests they are. Kevin McE (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Found what happened: the vandalism was overwriting Real Madrid's name with Chelsea's, not misrepresenting Chelsea's nationality. Now fixed. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ?

In the list of "Current ranking" I think position 1 & 2 are fake (Lincoln city & Millwall) + position 18 was changed into "Some bad football team", I think this should be Newcastle but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirnoff103 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Protection. Some Newcastle fans tried to edit the article without any notable sources to back up the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.153.86 (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T romy fc is number one club in the world

2021 196.249.97.43 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible chart of interest

Forbes' chart of the most valuable football clubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabago (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 forbes list is posted https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2022/05/26/the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2022-real-madrid-worth-51-billion-back-on-top/?sh=2262682a286b 72.224.146.91 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal

Was that supposed to be Barcelona on the first place? Arsenal is listed twice, and the one on the first place is listed as a Spanish club. 91.123.181.237 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes List seems be incredibly inconsistent

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2022/05/26/the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2022-real-madrid-worth-51-billion-back-on-top/?sh=bafc1fe286be

This is from 8 April 2023, they have Aston Villa at $750 million.

This is their valuation of MLS soccer/football teams. from February of the same year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2023/02/02/major-league-soccers-most-valuable-clubs-2023-lafc-is-the-first-billion-dollar-franchise/?sh=34af58ec5324

They show 4 teams valued higher than Aston Villa, yet none of them make the forbes most valuable list???

They value LAFC at $1 Billion

Can someone explain this to me? Why are the MLS teams excluded? is this a most valuable UEFA team list? Midgetman433 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Midgetman433: EPEAviator wrote "As of 8 April 2023" when the source was added that date [2], but as of dates should be the date of the source, not the date it was added or accessed. I have changed it to 26 May 2022.[3] The 2 February 2023 source says "Since 2019, the average MLS team’s valuation has climbed 85% to $579 million." The top club is at $1 billion so it would only have to increase 33% in 9 months to have been below $750 million in May 2022. I don't know how accurate the numbers are but it doesn't sound implausible so I wouldn't call it inconsistent. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for that. If you look down the article the other as of dates are by date of edit, so I was aiming to be consistent. Do you have the other dates for previous years, please? EPEAviator (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show dates when clicked. Only two of them were earlier months than stated. I have updated the dates but omitted the day of month.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes: The world's 30 most valuable Soccer Teams 2023

New list just dropped. seems the discrepancy issue is fixed, they added MLS teams to the World list and also expanded it from 20 to 30. @EPEAviator @PrimeHunter

https://www.forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/?sh=4b3b1583198b Midgetman433 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]