u/Wild-Photo-717

The loan is repayable over 20 years at ~5.5% rate, secured by the league’s domestic broadcast earnings.

This is Groundhog Day - in 2023 the league and clubs attempted twice to bring in PE money by selling a share of future TV income.

Second attempt to sell 8% of the TV income over 20 years for €1bn was accepted by the clubs, but was scratched after fan protests.

Noticeably new proposal is just a loan - Apollo would not receive an ownership stake in the league or in a separate commercial entity.

This avoids the “selling the league” optics. Most Bundesliga clubs already have loans and bonds issued.

1. Why would Apollo propose just a loan at 5.5%?

Because that is what they do. Apollo is primarily a Private Credit, and not a Private Equity firm. Over 80% of Apollo’s AUM is in private credit. But there is more to it...

Five years ago, PE had a consensus bull case built around growth in value of media rights and revenues. It’s fair to say that the bullish sentiment has faded! And thus, today providing high investment grade over-collateralized loan at good interest rate is more attractive than it was 3 years ago. And buying media rights for the next 20 years is viewed as riskier than it was before.

2. Does Bundesliga really need money?

The short answer is NO.

In the 2024/25 season, the 36 clubs (Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga) generated €6.33bn in combined revenue. Total profit after expenses was €271.5m. Hence, the league has a luxury that it can turn down the offer. Taking the loan would be a strategic decision.

And there lies the biggest question – how would the league and clubs use the money?

3. Would this be a good loan for Bundesliga?

Whether taking the loan is a good or bad decision for Bundesliga, will ultimately depend on the return they generate on that capital, and if they can make the league better for their fans.

Previous financings were sought in order to invest in digitalisation, growing the league internationally, and building its own media capabilities. Such long-term investments certainly make more sense, at least on paper, than distributing a lot of money to the clubs to plug their budget holes and spend waste money on transfers.

Having said that...

Full article: Analysis of Apollo's proposed €1 billion loan to Bundesliga

Beside being morally wrong, $20bn valuation assigned to FIFA Forward Enterprise is scandalous. Here is some math for folks interested in football finances:

Valuation: $20bn

Minority stake sale: 21% for $4.2bn

FIFA revenue 2023-2026 cycle: $15bn

For comparison purposes look at valuation multiple on an annual basis. For 2023-2026 cycle that is: 5.3x Revenue multiple.

Two relevant comparables are:

• LaLiga and CVC (2021): €2bn for 8.2% stake in the LaLiga’s broadcasting and sponsorship revenue for 50 years, implying €24.3bn valuation on €2bn revenue or 12x Revenue
• PGA Tour and Fenway led consortium (2025): $1.5bn for 11.6% stake in the PGA Tour at a $12.9bn valuation on $1.45bn revenue or 8.9x Revenue

The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event on earth. It is in the league of its own. If anything, it should carry 50% premium to other sporting properties. And Gianni has tried to sell it at a 50% discount!

Question: Do you think his days are numbered?

Full article: The art of the failed deal

Four Grand Slams, which generate >$1.5bn combined, share 13% - 15% of revenue with players via prize money.

The top ATP/WTA 1000 share ~22% of revenue.
In many team sports, athletes receive ~50% of revenue.

Players are demanding that the Slams share 22% by 2030. On the face of it this looks very reasonable.

Who owns and operates the Grand Slams?

Slams are owned by their national tennis federations, non-profits that reinvest profits back into the sport.

Meanwhile, ATP Tour and WTA tournaments are owned by different corporates, private equity, or wealthy individuals, and are receiving more external funding.

Wimbledon numbers

• 2024 Revenue: £406.5m
• 2024 Prize money: £50m
• 2024 Tournament Profits: £54.3m (90% of profits used to support British tennis)
• Profits before prize money: £104.3m

Basic concept in finance is that revenue and profits are not the same. There are also costs involved - such as costs of operating tournaments and infrastructure. Some of these costs are to improve players' welfare and experience.

At Wimbledon, players are getting only ~13% of revenue, but almost half of the tournament's profits (48%) before prize money is paid.

They are asking for 22% revenue share. That would be £89.4m (2024), or 86% of pre-prize money profits.

They are essentially asking that almost all the profits made by the Slams are paid to them in prize money. Which implicitly means that the four federations stop funding the sport locally.

This is not to say that distribution should not be different, that many things can improve, or that lack of engagement with players is a bad approach.

Looking at the numbers, it is all in the eye of the beholder, but they are not being as hard done by the Slams, as many are presenting.

Note: I don't post here often, sorry if this is repeat or not following some of the rules.