Forbes Magazine Names Kansas City Royals 26th Most Valuable Franchise in Major League Baseball

by Freneau on Mar 23, 2011 6:30 PM EDT in Kansas City Royals News

In a particularly pin-stripped annual tradition, Forbes has released its rankings of the most valuable franchises in baseball.

Coming in at number 26, your Kansas City Royals.

According to Forbes, the Royals have a current value of $351 million, just two million shy of Cleveland, who come in at #25. Surprisingly, the Royals come in ahead of the Blue Jays (#27, $337 million) despite the Jays playing in a huge market, with all of Canada as a secondary market. The least valuable? That would be the Pirates, at $304 million.

If there's one takeaway, it's that once you get to say, the Marlins at #24, there's not much difference amongst the bottom teams. Basically, there's the Yankees, who are valued at $1.7 billion, then a cluster of big market clubs who are worth $900-$700 million, then a cluster of mid-sized franchises all around $500 million, then the little guys.

The figures are based on revenues, attendance, and market size.

Obviously, it isn't great being #26, but it's a little better than I expected. Not sharing a division with the Yankees and Red Sox also helps tremendously.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think the method of putting teams into small/medium/big/REAL BIG buckets is the right way to look at it

Ranking ahead/behind Cleveland by a couple million $ is too fine a ranking with an estimation like this. The big picture is that the Royals are one of the small markets, probably right around the middle of their bucket – neither at the top nor at the bottom.

The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 23, 2011 6:52 PM EDT reply actions

Rewind yourself...

You’re saying we’re less than a Kendall Salary short of a being in 25th?

Haters gonna hate!
Go Royals, Chiefs and Blues!

by theroyalblues on Mar 23, 2011 7:24 PM EDT reply actions

for as much as people bitch about the yankees...

they could probably double their salary and still be as profitable as anyone else…

by Freneau on Mar 23, 2011 7:59 PM EDT reply actions

shhhhh! don't give them any ideas

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Mar 23, 2011 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I think that's what people like me are bitching about

The problem isn’t that they want to and will spend a lot more than every other team. The problem is that they can easily spend a lot more than every other team. As you suggested, they could probably afford to spend 10 times more than some teams.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 23, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

the NYC metro needs another team...

In the longterm, that will make something of a difference.

Of course, the next wave of expansion will probably be another failed pro sports franchise in North Carolina, and a B market like POrtland.

by Freneau on Mar 24, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I wonder how much that would decrease the revenues of the Yankees

They had a very long time as the only MLB team in the country’s biggest market. And the addition of the Mets hasn’t appeared to be hurt their revenues much. Sure there’s room for another team in the NYC market, but would that decrease attendance or viewership of YES? If not, then their revenues wouldn’t decrease by a penny.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 24, 2011 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions

It's hard to know what it might be without the Mets

But you have to assume, at some level, they do cut into their potential profits. I don’t think that Yankee attendance, short of a quota system, can really be curtailed. In fact, there’s some belief that multi-team markets actually increase demand for baseball mutually, though mostly for the B team. Oh, I really want to take my client to a baseball game, but it’s such a pain dealing with Wrigley, so we’ll get season tickets at the Cell as a backup.

But in terms of TV revenue, long-term, I think it would help redistribute the NYC monster.

Of course, this all may be fighting the last war. Its not like the current cable system is likely to still be in place in 20 years. Who knows.

What doesn’t get talked about enough is how much the three division format acts as a natural kind of fairness agent. Two thirds of the AL and all of the NL only have to deal with the Yankees after the Yankees progress through a number of hoops.

by Freneau on Mar 24, 2011 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Will, that touches on my idea:

Realignment, based on market size.

First, expand to 32 teams, for simplicity. They will be formed into 8 divisions, with NO WILD CARD, only division winners making the post season.

The key to my plan: The divisions are formed based on market size, straight down the line. This would presumably mean that the Yankees would be in the same division with Boston, LAD, etc.

Once the “rich” teams understand that they only have a one in four chance of making the post season, JUST LIKE the bottom four teams – then real reform (NFL-style revenue sharing) might follow, and things like organizational competency and simple luck might once again be a factor.

"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009

"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876

by loyal2sdad on Mar 24, 2011 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions

But market size seems to change over time

Cleveland and Seattle were small market teams in the 80s – large market in the 90s. Cleveland is now a small market again. Philly and Detroit were medium markets in the 90s – now they’re big markets.

I think you could put teams in Newark, Brooklyn and Connecticut, and while it wouldn’t totally take away the advantages for the Yanks and Red Sox, it would mitigate it quite a bit.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 24, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

How can two such rich guys look so horrible.

Seriously, this isn’t personal, but while Bud always looks hilarious, I don’t think I’ve seen a picture of David Glass in which he doesn’t look like a corpse in years.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 24, 2011 2:37 AM EDT reply actions