First of all, I know the $350 million figure has been quoted before, but I simply don't believe it. Clubs are very good at coming up with creative accounting shenanigans to justify their investments. Obviously Beckham had a big impact, although, of course, that was tempered by the fact that he owned 50 percent of his image rights while at the Bernabéu. But I think that number is simply wrong. And in terms of commercial potential, Ronaldo is light years from Beckham.
Really? Obviously hindsight is 20-20, but does this mean that we shouldn't have an opinion about whether someone is over or undervalued? Clubs look for bargains all the time. They place valuations on players all the time. It doesn't mean that just because they're willing to pay a certain amount, that's how much they should be paying.
Precisely. Which is what I was trying to assess with Ronaldo and Ronaldinho: are they -- hypothetically -- bargains?
Yes and no. Apart from Milan and Manchester City, clubs weren't exactly beating down Barcelona's door for Ronaldinho. He may be established, but he's coming off 18 months of underachievement. As for Ronaldo, last season was his first truly dominant campaign. Yes, he's young and he has a massive upside. But that's all it is right now. As for this "huge" positive marginal influence, I'd love to see some cold hard numbers.
Having met many of these people who approve these enormous transfer fees, I can tell you that you're mistaken in terms of "due diligence." In the summer of 2006, AC Milan had a $27 million bid for
That may be true, but it's true in almost every case. Milan sold
But so what? Milan could have not bought Ronaldinho and played
Or Milan could have chosen a player with an entirely different profile from Ronaldinho's: say