MLS finances seem a little screwed up to me:


Team: Balance, Additional

Galaxy: $80m balance, with $67.5m over 30 years (other income), $18m over 4 year kit sponsorship

San Jose: $25m, $7.5m over 3 years (kit sponsor)

Houston: $15m, $5.7m over 2 years (kit sponsor)

Chivas USA: $15m, $4m over 2 years (kit sponsor)

Toronto: $12m

D.C. United: $10m, $18.5m over 4 years (kit sponsor)

Seattle: $8.5m, $1 (one dollar) over 12 years (kit sponsor)

Chicago: $6.5m, $9m over 3 years (kit sponsor)

New York: $5m, $.25m over 12 years (kit sponsor)

Salt Lake: $5m, $3m over 3 years (kit sponsor)

Kansas City: $5m

New England: $5m

F.C. Dallas: $5m

Columbus: $5m, $4m over 4 years (kit sponsor)

Colorado: $5m





Those balance numbers seems pretty high for MLS (most specifically the Galaxy, San Jose, Chivas, etc). Where is the $67.5m over 30 years for the Galaxy coming from? Its not like the clubs can spend this much money anyway, but what is the rational behind this?




The Galaxy, San Jose, Columbus, Salt Lake and Chivas all have more or less correct Kit sponsors, but

New York (hard to do because Red Bull owns the club)

Chicago ($7.5m over 3 years: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/n...458cd1b6cac6d90 )

Seattle (~$20m over 5 seasons: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121194248966725139.html )

D.C. ($14 over 5 years: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/n...458cd1b6cac6d90 )

Houston ($7.5m over 4 years: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...tml?jst=s_cn_hl )

aren't right.