Hier beschreibt der Mitarbeiter von Transfermarkt.de sehr schön, warum man deren Werte nicht Ernst nehmen kann.
1 „Gefällt mir“
Man muss ja nur bei größeren Transfers der letzten 3-4 Jahre die Differenz zwischen Ablösesummen und TM-Wert analysieren. Dann nimmt man TM nicht mehr ernst.
2 „Gefällt mir“
Die neue aktuelle Analyse von Football Benchmark
Emilio Garcia Silvero, FIFA Chief Legal and Compliance officer commented as follows: “The two-year negative trend in clubs’ spending on transfer fees was turned around in 2022, with last year’s total outlay reaching USD 6.5 billion, an increase of 33.5% compared to 2021, yet still below the all-time high of 2019.”
Eine weitere gute Analyse von CIES
1 „Gefällt mir“
Immer wieder schön
1 „Gefällt mir“
Neue Bewertungen von Benchmark
Musiala weiterhin in den Top 10
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/a_new_era_begins_haaland_replaces_mbappe_on_the_throne
Schade das man nicht daneben die Buchwerte bzw Anschaffungswerte listet.
Da liegen wir nämlich weiterhin weit vorn.
Und diese Liste werden wir bald mit Kane anführen
1 „Gefällt mir“
Das sollte nicht unbedingt das Ziel sein. 
1 „Gefällt mir“
Es werden ja gerade emotional rational irrational die Transfers und Ablösen diskutiert
Hier ein Versuch einer Einordnung
https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/bargains_and_overpriced_deals
Die neue hervorragende Transfernarktanalyse von CIES
5. Net transfer spending per club
With €2.64 billion invested over the last decade, including more than a billion since its takeover by an American consortium just before the 2022 summer transfer window, Chelsea FC is the club that has committed the most money in transfer fees. Despite having invested „only“ €1.96 billion, Manchester United has by far the most negative balance (-€1.40 billion), ahead of Chelsea (-€1.03 billion) and Paris St-Germain (-€1.01 billion). For 2023 alone, the biggest deficits were made by Chelsea (-€557 million), Al-Hilal (-€341M) and Arsenal (-€217M).
Figure 10: most negative net transfer spending, per club (2014-2023)
€ Million
Manchester United (ENG)
€1’959M
€563M
€-1396M
Chelsea FC (ENG)
€2’637M
€1’604M
€-1033M
Paris St-Germain (FRA)
€1’761M
€751M
€-1010M
Arsenal FC (ENG)
€1’380M
€509M
€-871M
Manchester City (ENG)
€1’953M
€1’097M
€-856M
Newcastle United (ENG)
€1’016M
€345M
€-671M
FC Barcelona (ESP)
€1’779M
€1’116M
€-663M
Tottenham Hotspur (ENG)
€1’264M
€655M
€-609M
Milan AC (ITA)
€979M
€434M
€-545M
West Ham United (ENG)
€1’009M
€482M
€-527M
Aston Villa (ENG)
€865M
€383M
€-482M
Liverpool FC (ENG)
€1’355M
€894M
€-461M
Al-Hilal SFC (KSA)
€477M
€20M
€-457M
Juventus FC (ITA)
€1’583M
€1’134M
€-449M
Everton FC (ENG)
€1’028M
€636M
€-392M
Crystal Palace (ENG)
€519M
€143M
€-376M
Bournemouth AFC (ENG)
€575M
€231M
€-344M
Bayern München (GER)
€1’043M
€700M
€-343M
Real Madrid (ESP)
€1’279M
€954M
€-325M
Nottingham Forest (ENG)
€486M
€176M
€-310M
Figure 11: most negative net transfer spending, per club (2023)
€ Million
Chelsea FC (ENG)
€907M
€350M
€-557M
Al-Hilal SFC (KSA)
€363M
€1M
€-362M
Arsenal FC (ENG)
€315M
€98M
€-217M
Bournemouth AFC (ENG)
€219M
€3M
€-216M
Paris St-Germain (FRA)
€411M
€195M
€-216M
Real Madrid (ESP)
€231M
€17M
€-214M
Newcastle United (ENG)
€257M
€48M
€-209M
Al-Ahli SFC (KSA)
€202M
€-202M
Liverpool FC (ENG)
€238M
€67M
€-171M
Al-Nassr FC (KSA)
€164M
€-164M
Manchester United (ENG)
€228M
€78M
€-150M
Tottenham Hotspur (ENG)
€284M
€134M
€-150M
Burnley FC (ENG)
€143M
€1M
€-142M
Nottingham Forest (ENG)
€179M
€65M
€-114M
Al-Ittihad Club (KSA)
€76M
€1M
€-75M
Aston Villa (ENG)
€140M
€65M
€-75M
Olympique Marseille (FRA)
€122M
€56M
€-66M
Crystal Palace (ENG)
€65M
€1M
€-64M
Leeds United (ENG)
€103M
€47M
€-56M
Milan AC (ITA)
€137M
€82M
€-55M
FIFA Transfernarkt Bericht
-
All time-high of USD 7.36 billion spent on transfer fees between 1 June and 1 September
-
New milestone: over 10,000 mid-year transfers
-
USD 696.6 million spent on agent fees, also a new record
-
Transfers in women’s football also reach new heights
FIFA has published its International Transfer Snapshot (1 June – 1 September 2023), an analysis of the international player transfer activity during the 2023 mid-year transfer window, which reveals a number of all-time high figures in both men’s and women’s football.
Sehr interessant.
FB vergleichen sich mit den Werten und Ansätzen von CIES und Transfermarkt.
Persönlich denke ich auch, dass FB über die Jahre gezeigt haben, die realistischste Marktbewertung vorzunehmen. Transfermarkt ist von der Methodik her vergleichsweise ein schlechter Treppenwitz und trotzdem oft nahe dran.
@Alex und @Georg dürften ihre Freude haben!
MARKET VALUE FACE-OFF: TOP 20 PLAYERS ACROSS FOOTBALL BENCHMARK, TRANSFERMARKT AND CIES
Let’s use this opportunity to explore and compare market values from sources like Football Benchmark, the CIES Football Observatory, and Transfermarkt.
Notable distinctions lie in the approaches adopted by Football Benchmark, CIES and Transfermarkt, too. While the latter is known for user-generated content, and their valuations often reflect collective opinions and discussions, both CIES and Football Benchmark rely on data-driven analytics and statistical models to assess player values, perhaps resulting in a more objective valuation. Based on the information at our disposal, the main difference between the two is that in the case of CIES, the values refer to 100% of the economic rights and include both fixed and conditional sums (add-ons), while Football Benchmark’s valuations exclude the variable component. Additional differences are also a result of which on-pitch performance, player or club metrics are part of the statistical model and what weights are assigned to them. For more details about the Football Benchmark approach.
Despite the valuable insights different platforms provide in assessing player market values, it is essential to recognize inherent limitations and challenges. At Football Benchmark, we believe that it is fundamental to distinguish between the concepts of price and value and this is considered in our applied methodology. Price is defined as the amount a person or company pays for a particular product or service, whereas value represents the intrinsic worth of that product or service. If we translate this to transfer market and player valuation in football, the actual transfer fees observed might deviate from the fundamental concept of value due to various influencing factors. These factors include the unique financial and sporting circumstances of both the seller and the buyer at the time of the transaction. Additionally, the willingness of a player to either depart from or join a club can significantly impact the final transfer fee. League-specific rules and regulations, terms stipulated in release clauses, and the influence or interests of agents further contribute to the complexity of determining a fair value. Emotional considerations, stemming from the players, clubs, media or even fans, can also play a role in shaping the perceived worth of a player in the transfer market. Consequently, the actual transfer fee often reflects a multifaceted interplay of these diverse elements rather than a straightforward representation of the intrinsic value of the player.
Our team at Football Benchmark closely monitors developments in the transfer market and football finance to provide accurate valuations aiming to reflect fair market values. It is important to note that the number of clubs with the capacity to invest significant amounts in a single player transfer is limited. These high-value transfers account for a substantial portion of a club’s revenue, and the long-term commitment in the form of the players’ salaries must also be considered. It is crucial to emphasize that players valued at EUR 100 million or more remain a rarity, requiring substantial investment and meticulous planning from clubs.
Football Benchmark remains committed to provide independent values, offering an objective assessment of a player’s economic worth that considers the “market reality”.
Our objective is to support clubs in making informed choices about player acquisitions and contribute to a more strategic and effective approach in managing their squads.
Nach „Augenscheinvalididät“ scheint mir CIES den am wenigsten zutreffenden Ansatz zu haben…Mpappe auf Platz 27…Saka zB ca 20 Plätze weiter vorne?? Nachdem auch die in Italien spielenden Kicker tw weit hinter den anderen beiden Bewertungen liegen (Osihmen, Martinez) scheint bei denen die Liga einen größeren Einfluss auf den Marktwert der Spieler zu haben, als es (aus meiner Sicht) haben sollte.