EPL club Leicester City, which had "never won a top-tier championship in their 132 years of existence, completed the biggest upset in sports this year" when it clinched the league title yesterday with a payroll a "fraction the size of its richer rivals," according to Joshua Robinson of the WALL STREET JOURNAL. To the "superclubs, it made no sense." The "swelling wealth of the regular contenders had made a story like Leicester's seem impossible." Last season, the club was "closer to demotion to the second division than it was to the top half of the standings." English soccer has been "so dominated by the same half-dozen clubs for decades that the idea of a brand new champion in today’s day and age seemed quaintly antiquated." Only four different teams have "won the title in the past two decades" -- Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal. For British bookmakers, Leicester City "has been a costly fairy tale." Betting firm William Hill said that it took $553,561 (all figures U.S.) in "bets on the Foxes winning the title, but stood to pay out a total" of more than $4.3M, including bets that have "already been cashed out" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 5/3). USA TODAY's Martin Rogers writes English soccer is a "cold and brutal business that revolves around the stony realities of finance." EPL teams "don't restock through a draft system if they flounder," and there are no salary caps "or other mechanisms for parity." For the most part, the "rich get richer and better" (USA TODAY, 5/3).
ALREADY CASHING IN: TERT.am notes Leicester City "could be in line to make" nearly $219M as a result of the championship. This season the club's TV audiences "have soared by over 23% across metered markets globally." As a result, media values "have jumped by 30% globally whilst in the U.S. they have grown over 70%, showing first-hand the increase in value to current and potential sponsors." However, the club's "real commercial potential will become clearer in the season break as brands vie to associate themselves to the club and in turn, the league winners aim to maximise the returns their status could command" (TERT.am, 5/3). Meanwhile, the AP notes LCFC Vice Chair Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha, son of club Chair Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, aims to "keep the victorious squad together despite expectations that many players will be lured away by lucrative offers from richer clubs." Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha yesterday said, "We are not selling anyone. We are not a team who produces players to be developed later by other teams.” He added, “All players want to stay and keep on fighting together to see how far they can go. So selling players is not on our agenda" (AP, 5/3).
COST OF A CHAMPION: In London, Alyson Rudd writes LCFC's title is the "most astonishing story in the history of football." A "low-budget club outwitted the big hitters to clinch the title" (LONDON TIMES, 5/3). The GUARDIAN's Barney Ronay noted LCFC in the past was "too small to stay up, too big to stay down, ... clunking up and down between the divisions with reassuring regularity, an inbetweener club in a city on the way to somewhere else." In '02, the club "nearly went out of business altogether but were rescued by a consortium led in part by their ex-player Gary Lineker" (GUARDIAN, 5/2). ESPN's Ian Darke said, "What I love about this is it's a victory for the little man, the blue-collar team against the fat cats." ESPN's Alejandro Moreno added, "This has never happened before. To expect that now teams from everywhere are going to spout open and say, 'Now we're going to be Leicester.' I understand the premise of that thought, but I do believe that the bigger teams not only are going to spend the money, but they're going to get better" ("ESPN FC," ESPNews, 5/2). In London, Alexandra Sims notes LCFC's budget has "lagged behind that of its rivals." Manchester United has "spent more on new players in the last two years under their current manager than Leicester City have in their 132-year existence" (INDEPENDENT.co.uk, 5/3).
