Real to offer £100 million for Ronaldo

Boggles

Xavi6 wrote: »

You can nit pick all you want to try deflect from your original silly statement but you're talking bollox about Totti being finished as a player and that's all that matters. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, once you know it's crap.

So how many times have you seen Roma play this season?, I think we have established there is only one person talking Bollox, you havn't seen them 30+ times have you?

And of course my friend you are entitled to your opinion, but when debating your side don't tell lies, and when you are caught in these lies don't resort to attacking the poster, your around long enough to know you don't do that.

eZe^

Totti was pretty impressive against Madrid tbh, controlled the pace of the game, looked like he had as much time as he wanted on the ball.

Xavi6

Boggles wrote: »

So how many times have you seen Roma play this season?, I think we have established there is only one person talking Bollox, you havn't seen them 30+ times have you?

And of course my friend you are entitled to your opinion, but when debating your side don't tell lies, and when you are caught in these lies don't resort to attacking the poster, your around long enough to know you don't do that.

I don't have an exact figure on the amount of games but over the course of the season it would be in the 20s as I stay up and watch football every Saturday/Sunday night over here. That's a sufficient amount of games to be able to counter your argument to be fair.

I never attacked you and I ask you to show me where I have. I merely said your opinion was crap. I'm sure you're a real sound bloke outside of your opinion on Totti

Boggles

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't have an exact figure on the amount of games but over the course of the season it would be in the 20s as I stay up and watch football every Saturday/Sunday night over here. That's a sufficient amount of games to be able to counter your argument to be fair.

I never attacked you and I ask you to show me where I have. I merely said your opinion was crap. I'm sure you're a real sound bloke outside of your opinion on Totti

We will leave it there so.

Benjani good or bad signing?

Xavi6

Boggles wrote: »

We will leave it there so.

Benjani good or bad signing?

Lol well he scored in the derby at Old Trafford so best signing of the year!

PHB

To say Totti is finished is just stupid. That said, I think to say Totti would have made the difference between United and Roma was Totti is just silly.

Xavi6

PHB wrote: »

To say Totti is finished is just stupid. That said, I think to say Totti would have made the difference between United and Roma was Totti is just silly.

Who said that? If you mean me then all I said is he would have made A difference, not that him missing was THE difference.

leninbenjamin

IrishMike wrote: »

What paper may i ask?
A 2 page story in a tabloid such as NOTW or the Sun means **** all.
He is not the most marketable sportsman in the world.
He is not the most marketable sportsman in Europe.
He is not even the most marketable sportsman in European football.
To say he could be is pretty pointless.
I could say im going to win the lotto, could happen but chances are stacked against it!
To put it in context, Tiger woods makes as much from endorsements in a
year as Ronaldos world record fee of 100m which is also less than David
Beckhams total net worth.
Its like comparing a skoda to a ferrari, they are not even in the same ballpark!

that's bullsh*t and you know it. in terms of untapped potential the footballing market is far greater than the golf market. and Beckham's earnings weren't that far off Tiger's i read recently enough, certainly it appears football is catching up.

now after Beckham, who has the next pin up face of soccer? big head Wayne? vertically challenged Messi? he may not be the worlds greatest footballer but Ronaldo IS the worlds most marketable footballer. he's got the ability to make him stand out on the pitch. he's got the successful big name team thing going down. he's got the image. you'd be deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

jank

leninbenjamin wrote: »

that's bullsh*t and you know it. in terms of untapped potential the footballing market is far greater than the golf market. and Beckham's earnings weren't that far off Tiger's i read recently enough, certainly it appears football is catching up.

now after Beckham, who has the next pin up face of soccer? big head Wayne? vertically challenged Messi? he may not be the worlds greatest footballer but Ronaldo IS the worlds most marketable footballer. he's got the ability to make him stand out on the pitch. he's got the successful big name team thing going down. he's got the image. you'd be deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

So we are all expert marketing executives now!

Seriously cop on and stop mouthing off about things you know nothing about. Its too american:D

Anyway tiger is close to earning 1 Billion, Beckham is around the 90 million mark. So bit off so far!:rolleyes:

PHB

Golf is the most profitable sport in the world, way beyond soccer. Why? Because it utterly dominates the middle and upper classes. So there's a ****load more money, and also equipment if more expensive, so there are higher potentials for golfers.

Ronaldo sponsors a boot. Boot costs 60 quid.
Woods sponsors a club, a set of clubs costs a grand.

Boggles

PHB wrote: »

Golf is the most profitable sport in the world, way beyond soccer.

Is that actually a fact, can someone confirm it?

PHB wrote: »

Ronaldo sponsors a boot. Boot costs 60 quid.
Woods sponsors a club, a set of clubs costs a grand.

That is oversimplyfing it me thinks.

Thierry Henry endoresed a Car. A car Costs much more than a boot and a set of clubs, doesn't mean he makes more - Va Va Voom.

The article suggested he has the POTENTIAL to outearn Tiger. Not overall I would suggest, Tigers career could realistically last 30+ years, Ronaldo would be severely lucky if he could manage half that.

Market for Golf - 60 Million

Market for Soccer - 3.5 Billion

I'm no market guru but 60 / 3.5 Billion = A Way bigger market.

leninbenjamin

jank wrote: »

So we are all expert marketing executives now!

Seriously cop on and stop mouthing off about things you know nothing about. Its too american:D

how presumptuous of you.

PHB wrote: »

Golf is the most profitable sport in the world, way beyond soccer. Why? Because it utterly dominates the middle and upper classes. So there's a ****load more money, and also equipment if more expensive, so there are higher potentials for golfers.

Ronaldo sponsors a boot. Boot costs 60 quid.
Woods sponsors a club, a set of clubs costs a grand.

again a pointless analogy. Porsche are the most profitable car manufacturer in the world, if your talking margins. In nominal terms it's Toyota. Tiger can be your Porsche of the sportsworld, but Ronaldo (or someone like him) can be your Toyota.

you're also forgetting the institutional differences between Soccer and Golf. Ronaldo will never see as high a percentage of his market value accrue to his own personal income because at the end of the day there's more middle men in soccer than Golf. the club gets the first slice basically, as they are ones who directly benefit from the shirt sales (Real Madrid reputedly made Beckham's transfer fee in shirt sales in that first season, how much of that went towards his own personal income?). and i know little about Golf, but aren't the individual prize monies Tiger would accrue far in excess of what they are in soccer? doesn't that skew the figures already?

Chucky the tree

Boggles wrote: »

United are not a selling club, never have been. If they sell Ronaldo it will be a first. Ronaldo makes money for United, huge amounts. Business analysis have predicted he will be more marketable than Tiger Woods, which isn't a bad prediction considering football is infinately larger than the golf market will ever be.

Madrid have elections every year, this is part of the political nonsense. If they do indeed have 100 million sterling to spend, they would be better off getting in 5 or 6 player who might be able to steady the ship.

Ronaldo is playing in the best league in the world with the best team in the world. A move to Madrid would be a step down, as long as Ferguson has a hole in is arse, that Portugese winger will be going nowhere.

lol

rossie1977

£100m for ronaldo, lol, i am sure madrid would offer that if they went completely bonkers

well they did give Utd £20m for David Beckham and he was the best player in the world before ronaldo according to sky and the british media so i suppose Madrid are easily conned :eek:

aidan24326

sportinglife.com wrote:

QUEIROZ WARNS MADRID OFF RONALDO

Manchester United assistant manager Carlos Queiroz has warned his former club Real Madrid that even £96million would not be enough to prise away Cristiano Ronaldo.

Madrid have long been admirers of the Portugal international, with the Spanish media regularly linking the club with a big-money swoop for the 23-year-old winger.

However Queiroz, who spent a year in charge at the Bernabeu before returning to his former position as Sir Alex Ferguson's right-hand man at United in 2004, insists even a world-record transfer fee would not tempt the reigning Barclays Premier League champions into selling their biggest star.

"We would not sell him for 120million euros," Queiroz was reported as saying in Spanish newspaper Marca.

"You can offer all the money in the world, but there is no amount that can buy him."

Just spotted this on sportinglife.

Dave!

Sweet!

Mr. Presentable

DaveMcG wrote: »

Sweet!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/football/fa_carling_premiership/724438.stm

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cristiano-Ronaldo-and-Gabriel-Heinze-Are-NOT-for-Sale-29731.shtml

http://www.manunitedfanclub.com/2006/12/22/smith-not-for-sale-says-fergie/

I found these in a couple of minutes. All players sold after Ferguson said "...is not for sale"

Everyone has his price. Every one. Hey, there was even a Manchester Utd is not for sale

Boggles

nipplenuts wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/football/fa_carling_premiership/724438.stm

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cristiano-Ronaldo-and-Gabriel-Heinze-Are-NOT-for-Sale-29731.shtml

http://www.manunitedfanclub.com/2006/12/22/smith-not-for-sale-says-fergie/

I found these in a couple of minutes. All players sold after Ferguson said "...is not for sale"

Everyone has his price. Every one. Hey, there was even a Manchester Utd is not for sale

All Players not needed by the club anymore. United have never sold at a players peak in recent times.

Mitch Connor

nipplenuts wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/football/fa_carling_premiership/724438.stm

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cristiano-Ronaldo-and-Gabriel-Heinze-Are-NOT-for-Sale-29731.shtml

http://www.manunitedfanclub.com/2006/12/22/smith-not-for-sale-says-fergie/

I found these in a couple of minutes. All players sold after Ferguson said "...is not for sale"

Everyone has his price. Every one. Hey, there was even a Manchester Utd is not for sale

I think Smith is the only one of those that was sold soon after comments were made. Cole lasted a good while longer, Heinze was still there up to the following summer and was only sold when he made it clear he had no respect for United or its fans.

Mr Alan

Tiger Woods = Best ever in his chosen sport.

Ronaldo = Best player in the world currently.

Stop comparing the two.
In marketing terms its an embarrasment.
In sporting terms its an embarrasment.

Woods is revered by almost all involved in golf, and most other sports. Ronaldo (and almost any footballer) will never be that. They alienate massive portions of the planet based on the club they play for and their own carry on on the field.

Woods is the greatest sportsperson of our generation. Ronaldo, not near it.

IrishMike

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Quote of the day so far, in terms of how misguided it is.

Ronaldo is 23. He has the potential. Do u understand the meaning of the word "marketable"? You're talking about people who are already "marketed". Do u work in marketing or have u ever worked in or studied marketing? Its not all about the here and now. Its about potential. You couldnt market a guy like Hargreaves r Vidic past a certain point. Hence they are not really marketable. You have to look and ask can the Beckham brand grow any more? I dont think it can, especially in Europe. Can the C. Ronaldo brand grow? You're damn right it can. It could be huge if he wins the Premiership, Champions League, Euro 2008, and World/European/PFA Player of the Year this year. All realistic possibilities. Then he could be HUGE. Then companies would be tripping over themselves to sponsor him.


Ronaldo now, is potentially a huge star if marketed correctly. This means that if the Glazers wanted to make a huge amount on him then if they used the right avenues and people then they could. Merchandise, image rights, gate receipts, sponsorship etc.


I laugh at the suggestion that the chances are stacked against it. What do you base that on? Ronaldo has everything you would need to market him into a worldwide star. He's a marketing employees wet dream (even the male ones ):


- the skills of a Ronaldinho etc who was marketed to huge proportions based on that. Would u be really shocked to see Ronnie in pepsi ads soon? I wouldnt.

- good looking, one of Beckhams main attributes from a marketing perspective.

- plays for Man United, thus guaranteed to be recognisable in markets such as the Asian one.

- Already one of the faces of Nike.

- Will probably mop up te awards this year which was what propelled Zidane/Ronaldinho into superstardom.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

that's bullsh*t and you know it. in terms of untapped potential the footballing market is far greater than the golf market. and Beckham's earnings weren't that far off Tiger's i read recently enough, certainly it appears football is catching up.

now after Beckham, who has the next pin up face of soccer? big head Wayne? vertically challenged Messi? he may not be the worlds greatest footballer but Ronaldo IS the worlds most marketable footballer. he's got the ability to make him stand out on the pitch. he's got the successful big name team thing going down. he's got the image. you'd be deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Just to prove my point

In 2000, Woods signed a 5-year, $105 million contract extension with Nike. It was the largest endorsing deal ever signed by an athlete at that time.[79]

In October 2007, Gatorade announced that Woods will have his own brand of sports drink starting in March 2008. "Gatorade Tiger" marks Woods' first U.S. deal with a beverage company and his first licensing agreement. Although no figures were officially disclosed, Golfweek magazine reported that it was for five years and could pay Woods as much as $100 million.

That is just 2 of his endorsements
Couldnt get figures for his Tiger Woods golf games, his tag heuer
endorsements his buick is supposed to be $40m etc

Put it into context Nike pay Man United £300m over 13 years.
Are you honestly telling me some day ronaldo will be more marketable
than Man United?

Quote from ESPN

Endorsements: Tiger wears Nike from head to toe, and his recent switch from Titleist to Nike golf balls -- gee, could that have happened at a better time for Phil Knight? -- could reportedly net him an extra $40 million over the next five years (he's yet to sign the deal). He has also shilled for American Express, Asahi, General Mills, Golf Digest and Rolex, so even in 1998, a bad year for his Nike merchandise, Woods collected $25 million in endorsement checks. I assumed the Nike ball deal will go through, added its terms to Woods' average endorsement take from 1997 through 1999 and increased the total at a modest 8 percent a year until he hits 30. Then I let his endorsement earnings track his prize money. Result: $4.6 billion.

http://espn.go.com/otl/dollars/thursday.html

To say any soccer player or any athlete on earth could even come close
to that mans ability to make money from sponsership is just stupid
If the football market had more potential to make money then why is £300m over 13 years considered huge
for a soccer club, whereas tiger woods earns about 50m a year by himself from the same sponsor?

Loomis

Mr Alan wrote: »

Tiger Woods = Best ever in his chosen sport.

Ronaldo = Best player in the world currently.

Stop comparing the two.
In marketing terms its an embarrasment.
In sporting terms its an embarrasment.

Woods is revered by almost all involved in golf, and most other sports. Ronaldo (and almost any footballer) will never be that. They alienate massive portions of the planet based on the club they play for and their own carry on on the field.

Woods is the greatest sportsperson of our generation. Ronaldo, not near it.

A few people may argue with you on that - Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Michael Jordan...

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Tiger Woods = Best ever in his chosen sport.

Untrue

Mr Alan wrote: »

Woods is the greatest sportsperson of our generation.

Opinion, hard to quantify.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Tiger Woods = Best ever in his chosen sport.
They alienate massive portions of the planet based on the club they play for and their own carry on on the field.

Why do they alienate the whole planet???

A United Player may alienate half a country, but not the world.

This is the reason that Maradona, Pele, Zidane, etc Have been more popular than the pope.

IrishMike wrote: »

To say any soccer player or any athlete on earth could even come close
to that mans ability to make money from sponsership is just stupid

And to say that is naive, no one stays at the top forever.

The article suggested he had the POTENTIAL. With alot of ifs!

eZe^

Apparently Tiger Woods will be the first man to become a billionaire athlete (predicted by 2010). Speaks for itself tbh.

Boggles

eZe^ wrote: »

Apparently Tiger Woods will be the first man to become a billionaire athlete (predicted by 2010). Speaks for itself tbh.

A Golfers career can be double even triple that of a footballer, article never suggested he would outearn him overall.

eZe^

Ok, so he can be marketable for 2 or 3 times longer than a footballer. He's still more marketable then?

Boggles

eZe^ wrote: »

Ok, so he can be marketable for 2 or 3 times longer than a footballer. He's still more marketable then?

In a tax year I'd suggest.

IrishMike

Boggles wrote: »

to say that is naive, no one stays at the top forever.

The article suggested he had the POTENTIAL. With alot of ifs!

He has the potential, if people stop playing golf and basketball.
:rolleyes:

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

Untrue

No its not. To be honest, if Woods packed it in tomorrow, he would be the greatest golfer ever, he may not have overtaken jacks major haul, but he would be have been the greatest ever. Dominating a sport like it had never been done before.

Boggles wrote: »

Why do they alienate the whole planet??

Because, great footballers by nature are quite arrogant. They are not perfect role models, and are not even nearly deemed to be. Look at Ronaldo, MOST people who are not Utd fans have a grave disliking for the man. He does not transcend barriers like Pele, Tiger Woods etc. Therefore it does not make sense that he is worth as much Tiger Woods (to continue with the comparrison) as a lot of most companies target markets will dislike him.

He is not as good looking as Beckham (;)) so wont be worth as much to styling companies, beauty products etc etc.

Beckham will remain the most marketable footballer of our times, maybe of all time.

Boggles wrote: »

This is the reason that Maradona, Pele, Zidane, etc Have been more popular than the pope

Maradona, Pele and Zidane are 3 of the greatest footballers of all time, Ronaldo, if he fulfills his potential may join them on that pedastal, but he has nothing they didnt have that will make him anymore more marketable than they were.

In short;

Tiger Woods are Ronaldo are not comparable as marketable sports stars.

Boggles

IrishMike wrote: »

He has the potential, if people stop playing golf and basketball.
:rolleyes:

No, it didn't suggest that.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

No its not. To be honest, if Woods packed it in tomorrow, he would be the greatest golfer ever, he may not have overtaken jacks major haul, but he would be have been the greatest ever.

That's your opinion, it is a whole different agruement that belongs in the golf forum - I would suggest you look up why even Woods regards Jack his superior.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Dominating a sport like it had never been done before.

Yes it has.

Mr Alan wrote: »

He is not as good looking as Beckham (;)) so wont be worth as much to styling companies, beauty products etc etc.

Oh dear, I'm not touching that one.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Beckham will remain the most marketable footballer of our times, maybe of all time.

Forever and Ever?

Mr Alan wrote: »

Maradona, Pele and Zidane are 3 of the greatest footballers of all time, Ronaldo, if he fulfills his potential may join them on that pedastal, but he has nothing they didnt have that will make him anymore more marketable than they were.

Yes he has, the likes of Pepsi willing to stump up 50 million for Britney.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Tiger Woods are Ronaldo are not comparable as marketable sports stars.

But yet you can compare cross sports to who is the greatest of all time, would be easier to compare marketabilty I'd suspect.

Mr. Presentable

Mr Alan wrote: »

Look at Ronaldo, MOST people who are not Utd fans have a grave disliking for the man.

He is not as good looking as Beckham (;)) so wont be worth as much to styling companies, beauty products etc etc.


.

This is true. He just has something about him makes you want to punch him.

But because he looks so effeminate you feel it'd be like hitting a girl.

Maybe he could be a spokesman for gay cosmetics products, if there are such things.

Mr Alan

Boggles, it appears you daft opinions on sports are not restricted to football

Jack says Tiger is better. Tiger says Jack was better.

Reason?

Its a sport played in the main by gentlemen.

Another reason why its top players are so much more attractive in a marketing sense.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Boggles, it appears you daft opinions on sports are not restricted to football

Could you point out what is daft, so I can learn from my mistakes, oh Mr. Alan of the huge brain.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Jack says Tiger is better. Tiger says Jack was better.
.

Not having a Jack V Tiger Debate. Go to the golf forum.

Noelie

Boggles, I think he is pointing out that each say the other is better, as it is not a great attribute to claim you yourself are the best.

Boggles

Noelie wrote: »

as it is not a great attribute to claim you yourself are the best.

I Am the Greatest - Who said it?

Well aware what he was saying, this is a soccer forum thou.

IrishMike

Boggles wrote: »

Yes he has, the likes of Pepsi willing to stump up 50 million for Britney.

What the hell has britney spears got to do with this?


At 25 Tiger woods signed a $105m deal with Nike.
Ronaldo is 23, what are the chances in 2 years anyone will approach him with
an offer even close to that?

---

Answer is Zero.
There is not the same money in soccer because there are millions of
superstars in the sport. In Golf there is one superstar.
Woods gets every big endorsement, Ronaldo will not even get all the big
endorsements at Man Utd
He will therefore never EVER have the money making potential that woods has.

kryogen

IrishMike wrote: »

What the hell has britney spears got to do with this?



He will therefore never EVER have the money making potential that woods has.

FACT

Boggles

IrishMike wrote: »

What the hell has britney spears got to do with this?


At 25 Tiger woods signed a $105m deal with Nike.
Ronaldo is 23, what are the chances in 2 years anyone will approach him with
an offer even close to that?

---

Answer is Zero.
There is not the same money in soccer because there are millions of
superstars in the sport. In Golf there is one superstar.
Woods gets every big endorsement, Ronaldo will not even get all the big
endorsements at Man Utd
He will therefore never EVER have the money making potential that woods has.

And your basing that on your vast knowledge and experience of the markets not to mention your ability to see the future?

POTENTIAL TO BE!!!!

Things like if Portugal win the Euros, The World Cup, Ronaldo comes 3 times World player of the year, Fufils Potential.

eZe^

Still, I can honestly never see him over taking Tiger, as you have already said, Tiger will be able to market himself for 3 times longer than Ronaldo, thus overall being more sucessful for companies.

Boggles

eZe^ wrote: »

Still, I can honestly never see him over taking Tiger, as you have already said, Tiger will be able to market himself for 3 times longer than Ronaldo, thus overall being more sucessful for companies.

No one is top forever.

kryogen

Tiger has been at the top for longer then Ronaldos career and the likelyhood is he will probably still be at the top when Ronaldo retires....or will be very close to it. he is phenomenal, and the money in golf is much bigger.

Its possible Portugal could win the Euro's and World cup with Ronaldo bagging hattricks in every game and him winning the World player of the year 4 times in a row......but its very very very very very very very very very very (have i stressed this enough???) unlikely isnt it

but what is likely is that Woods will continue to dominate his sport and endorsements, i know who my company would prefer to market

vorbis

Real are not going to offer 100 million pounds. Even they are not that bonkers.
NO PLAYER is worth that much. As someone else said, look at Ronaldinho at the moment. He was the best player in the world only two seasons ago! Imagine paying 100 million for a player and he has an Eduardo incident in the second month at the club. How stupid would you look then? Its a complete tabloid story.

Boggles

kryogen wrote: »

Tiger has been at the top for longer then Ronaldos career and the likelyhood is he will probably still be at the top when Ronaldo retires....or will be very close to it. he is phenomenal, and the money in golf is much bigger.

Its possible Portugal could win the Euro's and World cup with Ronaldo bagging hattricks in every game and him winning the World player of the year 4 times in a row......but its very very very very very very very very very very (have i stressed this enough???) unlikely isnt it

but what is likely is that Woods will continue to dominate his sport and endorsements, i know who my company would prefer to market

Potential - Possible not Actual.

Never said he will, but some people suggested it can't happen. It might be remote but it can happen.

Noelie

vorbis wrote: »

Real are not going to offer 100 million pounds. Even they are not that bonkers.
NO PLAYER is worth that much. As someone else said, look at Ronaldinho at the moment. He was the best player in the world only two seasons ago! Imagine paying 100 million for a player and he has an Eduardo incident in the second month at the club. How stupid would you look then? Its a complete tabloid story.

agreed, woods could even have a bad year and would still be marketable. if Ronaldo doesn't have a great season next year his marketability will shrink considerably.

Attractive Nun

Boggles wrote: »

Potential - Possible not Actual.

Never said he will, but some people suggested it can't happen. It might be remote but it can happen.

It's also possible that Louis Saha could do all those things. He's pretty good looking too. But it's not going to happen.

Golf is a totally different market to football. There are more 'marketable superstars' in the some single squads than there are in the sport of golf. Even if Ronaldo was to transfer to Birmingham City and win the Champions League on his own, he still couldn't dominate football the way Woods can dominate golf.

Football has loads of different leagues. Ronaldo can only play in two - and in doing so he will probably alienate half the fans he plays against. It has an international and domestic competitions. Every footballing country in the world has their own national heroes. Ronaldo is never going to appeal to the people of Cote D'Ivoire as much as Drogba or Toure, for example. Ronaldo does not have the potential to rival the marketing value of Tiger Woods (unless Woods murders his wife or something) simply because the very nature of the football market means Ronaldo will have too many competitors. There are thousands of professional footballers playing at high levels, all young fit men - many of whom compete for their countries too.

Who are Woods' competitors?

Current golfing rankings:

1. Tiger Woods [multi-racial, immensely talented, good-looking, nice guy, young]
2. Phil Mickelson [pretty old, kinda fat-looking, pretty annoying]
3. Ernie Els [pretty old, kinda fat-looking, weird accent]
4. Steve Stricker [not even sure what he looks like really]
5. Geoff Ogilvy [ditto]
6. K.J. Choi [if golf was big in Asia, I'd imagine this lad would do well. Alas...]
7. Justin Rose [young upstart, some potential but he's boring and skinny]
8. Vijay Singh [old, Fijian]
9. Jim Furyk [weird-looking]
10. Adam Scott [kinda good-looking, not really that talented, skinny]

Ronaldo will NEVER earn as much money as Woods, simply because it is impossible for football to create conditions comparable to the ones Tiger currently enjoys.

eZe^

By the way, Graham Hunter was saying today that Madrid will definitely be putting in an offer that could go as high as 100 million. They will do whatever it takes for Ronaldo to be the face of this Madrid side. Whether Alex will part with him is a whole different kettle of fish, but the bid will be made according to Hunter.

Boggles

Attractive Nun wrote: »

It's also possible that Louis Saha could do all those things. He's pretty good looking too. But it's not going to happen.

Golf is a totally different market to football. There are more 'marketable superstars' in the some single squads than there are in the sport of golf. Even if Ronaldo was to transfer to Birmingham City and win the Champions League on his own, he still couldn't dominate football the way Woods can dominate golf.

Your missing the point of potential.

If Ronaldo was to become A true superstar of world football, someone we havn't seen the likes of since Best, Pele, Maradona.

Someone who we will be talking about in 40 years time. If he was marketed correctly like Brand Beckham.

Becks signed a 5 year deal for €275 Million, imagine he was the best footballer in the world and not just an above average winger with free kick capabilities. Imagine he was World Player of the Year and had a couple of World Cup Medals under his belt.

Ronaldo has everything, right club, right country, right skills. right look.

It is about potential, and potentially he can earn a $100+ million a year.

leninbenjamin

Attractive Nun wrote: »

Football has loads of different leagues. Ronaldo can only play in two - and in doing so he will probably alienate half the fans he plays against. It has an international and domestic competitions. Every footballing country in the world has their own national heroes. Ronaldo is never going to appeal to the people of Cote D'Ivoire as much as Drogba or Toure, for example. Ronaldo does not have the potential to rival the marketing value of Tiger Woods (unless Woods murders his wife or something) simply because the very nature of the football market means Ronaldo will have too many competitors. There are thousands of professional footballers playing at high levels, all young fit men - many of whom compete for their countries too.

to some extent you're ignoring the capacity of Football as a commercial entity to grow. look at the exponential rise of the premier league (and to a lesser extent the other big two) at the cost of many smaller national leagues. for a while now we've been hearing the possibility of a European superleague. look at how the game has transformed from the passtime of the working classes and poor to attracting 'fans' of considerable wealth who are willing to fork over tens of thousands annually on coporate seating. and if you'll remember the primary reason for building the emirates was because Highbury didn't have enough coporate boxes? we're only beginning to see the fruits of this shift, there is little to suggest it can't expand on this; and as a result the game is clearly losing its diversity, which means future stars like ronaldo will have increasing prominence as it continues to develop.