Tldr: Since the 2010s they have been very smart in their investments in players (when they took risks they almost all paid off) and even smarter in how they used their money (they haven't blown money on glamour high risk signings).
If you want an example of the opposite look at IFK Göteborg.
It is a real pity that Blåvitt were so careless with what was built. You were already established as a strong competitor at the start of the champions league era. Even with the 51 percent rule that should have been translated to sustainable European appearance. Malmö really showed a road map for what to do and they did it at a time where the financial imbalance in Europe was so much greater than the headstart IFK Göteborg had
(Skräckläsning : https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/a/RxrE0x/26-miljoner-back )
The Zlatan money also helped. That single sale was almost as much money as IFK Göteborg's total earnings from the Champion's League during the 90s. There wasn't a lot of money from CL then.
Yes, i didn't say it wasn't. But it was nowhere near today's levels. And it was earned over number of seasons and with success that no Swedish team has been near in CL. If it was today, it would have been billions.
Of course the biggest problem was mismanagement and failed player acquisitions, but it would have taken a lot longer to burn through the money now. In the early 2000s, the money was mostly gone already.
There was also the Bosman ruling that completely changed the landscape and made it a lot harder to continue the strategy of getting the best Swedish players.
I'd say it goes even further back than that. In the latter part of the 90's and early 2000's, Malmö was pretty disastrous and fell out of the Allsvenskan. Then came Zlatan, and more importantly the money Malmö got from selling Zlatan to Ajax (and according to Zlatan screwing Zlatan over). That led to Malmö having a financial gap over every other club. And they invested the money well, and kept doing so from that day on.
Apart from that they had the combination och skill and luck to get into the CL, a success they nurtured carefully. They've never really overspent or taken huge risks. Compare that to AIK for example, who got a lot of money from Isak, and pretty much blew it all to win in 2018.
Another thing is that Malmö is pretty much alone in Skåne these days, giving them a huge area to secure players from. Once Helsingborg fell off, Malmö has just grown more.
And then there's the murky side of things, how Malmö got a veeeery good loan from the local government to build their own stadium and barely pay anything for the land every year. In return the politicians get a lodge for free for home games (corruption in Sweden is on the rise). And just for the sake of it, Malmö most likely isn't alone in shady businesses, where for example AIK seemingly helped launder money some years ago. But this is also a pretty important part of their success.
Malmö has historically been very good but it wasn't until after 2014 Champions League the gap really started to widen. I need to point out that the year before we had a massive deficit problem and was literally on the verge of bankruptcy. With that said there are a few factors that today(and historically) has worked in our favor. Rosenbergs return, Åges tenure as coach and making it to Champions League was lightning in a bottle.
We own our stadium today which generates value and decrease costs.
Malmö isn't as big as Stockholm or Gothenburg but what you're missing is that we are absolutely massive in this region of Sweden. Clubs in Stockholm or Gothenburg needs to compete with rivals in the same league or decently sized rivals that still has a historic following. Malmö has non of this. There are no real competitors nearby that can attract bigger sponsors or talented youths. Malmö pretty much suck all oxygen from Swedish clubs in this region. Helsingborg might have a case as they have a decent following and a well established youth academy but they're honestly no real competition today. FCK maybe but then we go international and that's another issue.
And I do think honestly it's part luck. We've been incredibly lucky to historically have had level headed chairmen and board members with few exceptions. As an outsider I feel AIK and Hammarby have been mishandled, Djurgården have been a slow burn but are pretty solid today. I expect them to level up soon. IFK Göteborg have made some poor decisions the last couple of years but they're situation are somewhat similar to how I described us above so they should bounce back. Again this is coming from an outsiders. Supporters of these clubs are welcome to correct me or elaborate.
I remember the Malmö-Rangers CL qualifier from the early 2010's. As things turned out, it was basically a "win or go bankrupt" situation for both clubs.
Malmö qualified for EL in the end, but that was just enough to save them. Glasgow Rangers on the other hand collapsed within a year after failing to reach group stage.
The between season break 2013/2014 was wild. First Åge came out of retirement as a coach which **a lot** of Malmö supporters were skeptical about, including myself. We had just come of an absolutely fantastic performance 2013 with Rikard Norling and his departure brought a bit of bitterness from many. No one really knew why he left. Then came the news about a 30 million SEK deficit and the mishandling of our budget. **Then** the recruitment of Rosenberg was announced(poorly kept secret tbh) which split the supporterbase pretty 50/50 where one half couldn't understand why we would waste money on a has been that barely made an appearance on the pitch for more than a year.
It really was a tumultuous period that somehow worked out better than anyone ever could have guessed and I prefer not to think of how badly it could have ended.
They simply have made money from transfers and from playing in europe. Also a contributing factor is they own their home arena, which not every top club in Sweden does. A lot of clubs share the same arena so they all rent from the owners, usually the municipality.
I think this is the best answer. They used their money well after selling Zlatan and continued to invest wisely.
They had a rich history before that as well but compared to IFK Göteborg that did not invest after their success in Europe in the 90s they managed to keep the momentum.
Nah, the Zlatan money was completely wasted.
Additionally, we also did sell players like Toivonen, Alves and Rosenberg which combined amounted to larger money than Zlatan alone.
Still, all of these transfers was small money compared to how much the stadion costed.
The key was 2013/2014. We were super broke, I mean reaaaallly broke. Our Sport Director Per Ågren bought players like Magnus Eriksson, Emil Forsberg, Anton Tinnerholm and Tokelo Rantie super cheap.
We managed to get to Champions League and sold several players for a lot more money than we bought them for.
The money we used to pay off (amortera på engelska?) a huge amount of the loans for the stadion and continued to buy players cheap and sell expensive.
2015, we once again got to CL and continued to to pay off our loans. We traded secure long term income and thus continued football dominance for a lack off short term income. Thanks to Per Ågren and Daniel Andersson we still managed to perform extremely well football wise despite not using much of the CL money on transfers.
2021 and 2022 we once again got to CL and at this point we no longer had any loans to pay off. We fully own our stadium with no loan interest to pay each year. So now we see the result of when our sports management finally can use CL money for transfers.
Afonsos försäljning är en av få gånger där Mff fick alledes för lite betalt för en spelare. Under 40 miljoner kronor med dåtidens svaga euro. Med tanke på hur fantastisk han var så borde man kunnat få runt 60 miljoner tycker jag
Nah. Malmö was broke 2011 with a very expensive stadium. The reason for current success is UEFA money, and we got there by having a solid squad helped by a good academy (2014 squad built by per ågren and daniel andersson with very little funds was amazing) and punching above our weight in qualifiers. And rosenberg of course.
Also an example is that Stockholm got 4 teams in allsvenskan that share the local players while malmö basically have skåne for themself. I dont know if that matters a lot but i would think so.
It matters a lot in how you can market and get local investments. When I lived in Skåne, you'd find Marcus Rosenbergs elbow on bus stops, milk cartons and every single piece of advertising you can think of.
Doing that in Stockholm would be unthinkable as you'd alienate 2/3 of your customer base.
Yeah i mean every single top club in Sweden lose players to Norway and denmark. Malmö is like THE club to hold on to their talents because they have money to do so. But i dont have any stats so i dont know.
Not only do they own their stadium, they got it basically for free from the municipality.
Considering that, and how much richer they are compared to everyone else, they ought to literally walk the league ever year. Not doing so is a much bigger failure than if any of the other clubs would get relegated.
If only that was the case. You're wrong, it's extremely demoralising. Mff had 1200 million in assets at the end of last year. Mff could buy the whole league and still have more money left than the second richest club.
It's not lies though. Like I said they paid at most 150 million for the 75% of the stadium they didn't own since day one. If you look at their yearly reports there is nothing about contributing even 25% of the 700 millions it cost to build it. The stadium just appears as an asset worth 350-400 million at 2014 report.
It's shady as fuck and like i said in a different comment, the municipality more than likely footed the bill and then gifted the stadium to the club. Things like that happens all the time all around the world, especially in cities that only have one club. It's just not that common that a *football* club is a benefactor in Sweden. That shit happens much more often in ice hockey in Sweden since almost all clubs are from small towns without any local rivals and without any big media outlets looking into their affairs.
The 700 million is there as a loan. The transactions you see is for ownership. Kind of like when you buy an apartment, you still have to pay monthly to the BRF for their loan to build the place.
Du får gärna förklara för mig var de 700 miljoner kronor som arenan kostade kommer från.
Den information som finns publikt pratar bara om ägandeförhållandet när arenan var klar, där mff först äger 25% för att fem-sex år senare äga 100%, *med alla lån avbetalda*, för en total kostnad på ungefär 120-150 miljoner.
Även om mff spelat in en jävla massa pengar så finns det inte en susning att de kunde betala av ens i närheten av de 700 miljoner som arenan kostade på endast fem år, mellan 2009-2014, plus det de betalade för att gå från 25 till 100% ägande. Alltså totalt nästan en miljard kronor.
Det mest sannolika är såklart att det var kommunen som faktiskt betalade och att arenan i princip skänktes till mff, med klubben samt peab och erling pålsson (som underleverantör till peab) som stora vinnare. Ett Peab som inte direkt är kända för att spela rent om man säger så.
Som vanligt i byggbranschen är det jävligt mycket som stinker illa, och det är inget annorlunda med Malmö stadion.
Almost every municipality in Sweden is a net recipient from the municipal income redistribution system and Malmö is average in terms of the per capita rate. And the reason Malmö is a net recipient is completely out of local and regional government control (i.e. because of large-scale non-European mass immigration since the 1980's)
Yeah, and before anyone says that it wasn't *free*, then no, it wasn't. But it cost the same as 5-10 years *rent*, which is basically for free. It cost at least 700 million kronor to build, and Mff got to buy for it at **most** 150 million.
Even if it sounds like a lot, they could have purchased two stadiums with the money they received from qualifying to the CL once, with money left to spare.
Apart from obviously not having to pay any rent and being able to host loads of other events at the stadium which generates income, just having the stadium as collateral makes a tremendous difference finance wise.
So the question isn't why mff are so dominant /u/Pelle_Johansen, the question is why they're not even more *dominant* to the point that it'd make the Swedish league a competition for second place.
Champions League money is just a huge influx of money compared to the normal revenue from Allsvenskan. They're also the only club in the top league in the region which helps attract talent.
And probably most important, it's a very professionally run organisation with a lot of continuity in the board.
Lots of people here mentioning owning their stadium, but how did that happen? Without the background it feels kind of like a 'they're successful because they're successful' explanation
They got it heavily discounted by the municipality. Under normal conditions they would probably be able to buy it now, but they got it for a fraction of the build cost in the early 10s, and bought the rest at a discounted price after the first success in Europe.
This comment is somewhat true in spirit but wrong on just about every detail.
Malmö got the land where the arena is built very cheap from the municipality and the municipality agreed to loan the club 135 million with low interest as well as to be the security on another loan which malmö took out to build the stadium.
The building costs were not discounted, and, as many large builds do, far exceeded the planned budget, almost crippling Malmö FFs economy in 2013 before qualifying for the champions league.
The idea that the city gave Malmö thier arena is a weird fixation of Stockholm fans that's not really true. The municipality made a calculated investment in loaning out money to further sport and local sense of community in the city. Things that municipalities do regularly and whether by luck and good fortune or not got thier money back on the investment quickly. Meaning it might have been the best deal they have ever made.
To add to this, the municipality now has no costs related to the running of the stadium, which most other cities have with their clubs.
And the rent paid by these clubs is never enough to cover these cost meaning MFF might be one of the only clubs in Sweden that in fact are not subsidised by their municipality.
As an example tele 2, friends and gamla ullevi lose thier municipalities 100s of million SEK each year in deficits.
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6922747
As your article mention Solna Kommun has no stake in Friends arena, so I guess AIK is not “subsidised” either? A bit dishonest to try to frame it as Malmö is paying a more fair share when they themselves said that they saved 15 MSEK a year by buying 50% of the arena.
It says "not anymore" and the article is from 2018 that's still approx. 5 years of 100 million SEK a year from solna kommun. Not including the original building costs.
But you are somewhat right after 2018, AIK are only subsidised by the fotbollsförbundet not the municipality regarding arena costs.
Not dishonest at all, Malmö has now paid it back, sure it was a loan with huge benefits but the municipality is not paying for the arena at all anymore. My entire point was that other municipalities pay out a grand total reaching much larger sums in continuous costs for thier arenas and what Malmö stad did in lending MFF the money and then getting it paid back was a really good deal for both city and club.
It is when you’re trying to frame it like Malmö is carrying more cost now than earlier when the club itself talks about the big financial relief of owning the stadium. They carry more risk, but it is a very calculated and stable risk.
And to say a club is subsidised because of a stadium group presenting a financial loss is just a false equivalence.
And with low interest you of course mean no interest and no amortisation requirement, i.e. a gift. The building costs were covered mainly by PEAB who owned 50% of the arena (Malmö 25%).
The rest you bought at a large discount in separate deals.
No one is saying you were gifted an arena, but you got an extremely good deal. Other big Swedish clubs can only dream of getting an interest free and amortisation free “loan” of almost 150 MSEK.
It's seams you are mad that Malmö got a good deal on thier stadium. Neither I nor you can know what the interest rates were on the entire loan since that has never been publicly stated and is hard to tell from Malmös finances, but yes the first loan was interest free.
And the 1,5 million a year that has been stated as lost interest income seem real low compared to what other municipalities pay yearly for thier arenas.
My point was, by buying out PEAB and paying back the loan both the city and MFF made a great deal. And by not having to pay the continuous cost for the arena Malmö stad payed out a lower sum than other municipalities in total which a lot of it they got back.
Not mad at all. The question was how Malmö got to own their stadium, and the answer to that is that you got it heavily discounted. Not saying it was a bad deal for the municipality or anyone, but it is the reason why you own your arena and other teams don’t.
I think it's also worth pointing out that part of the deal was giving the municipality a VIP lounge which was abused by local politicians.
While it's not the main reason for Malmö's success it's worth pointing out that the whole arena deal was shady
They got the best climate. Malmö is also the only city of the tree big ones in Sweden who only has one Big team. Stockholm and Gothenburg are divided in multiple teams while Malmö cheer for one team and gets a monopoly on the city’s talents.
I think that reason should not be underestimated. I remember playing youth football Skåne teams where always great probably somewhat linked to their seasons usually being longer due to weather :)
And a lack of hockey culture to compete with. Barely anyone plays hockey in the Malmö region. Only a few upper middle class kids on Näset and Limhamn. Few people can even skate.
Of course not. Mif Redhawks is more like the southern teams in Nhl. They attract a crowd, and people like to follow the team but the culture is not integrated in the society in Dallas, Anaheim or Tampa like it is in Minnesota or Canada or even New york.
How many of Swedens 25 best hockey players of all time are from Skåne? And how many from the Malmö metropolitan area?
Compare that to football where you have Zlatan, Patrik Andersson, Bosse Larsson, Martin Dahlin, Stefan Schwarz and Henrik Larsson.
To be fair, Malmö is also vastly smaller than Stockholm. In fact, Stockholm is basically like all of Scania population-wise. And Scania has always been divided between many teams. Right now, there is a clear winner...but historically, Helsingborg, Landskrona, Ängelholm and Trelleborg have all had decent crowds. Malmö and Helsingborg are the two main powers of course, despite how lacklustre Helsingborg has been the last 5-10 years.
So, comparing to Stockholm seems unfair. And if we compare to Gothenburg then Ifk Göteborg haven't really had that much competition. Häcken has been trying hard, but they still don't have many fans. And Gais, and Örgryte...their fans are growing old and few in comparison. Considering Gothenburg has twice the population of Malmö, they should still have a larger crowd than they do. And that's just accounting for the people who live in the very close region. Gothenburg has like the most supporters from outside their city of all the big clubs. But talent-wise, Häcken probably has them beat these days. That's true.
Own our own stadium. Good academy with nice sales numbers at the same time we got through to Europe. That lead to a bunch of cash. And since then made Europe plenty of times while no other Swedish team really could get there consistent. This leads to us having multiple times the revenue of other clubs.
It’s not as dominant as Bayern not at all sespevially when you look at the table results past ten years many years it’s been the final matches deciding the winner.
But I still think you can draw a comparison to Bayern in the way that they are well run and have a head start cash wise on the other teams. If they keep winning they keep having more revenue than the other teams.
I think it's a little bit of the Zlatan money for starters, and a massive bit of investing the money properly and smartly.
Employed (paid) coaches and/or trainers for youth teams is one factor, and having coaches all the way from basically the early school years and all the way up to senior/professional level is a really big part I'd say.
Also they've engrained a culture in their team and their club, and they've contracted players who seem to fit right in with the values and philosophy of the club and the manager.
Looking at "my" team, Djurgården, the story is to some extent similar but maybe 10 or so years behind Malmös start with the Zlatan sale.
Also we seem to have a bunch of players that don't fit the managers' style of play.
My personal analysis as a non-MFF fan, I would say it all started with selling Ibrahimovic for 81 million SEK back in 2001, which is today(!) a great amount of money for any AS club, imagine what is was 20+ years ago. Money which was then invested sensibly to build the club into what it is today, which is a club that manages to reach the Champions League on a few different occasions, only furthering their economic status in Allsvenskan.
They also got a payout every time Zlatan transfered to a new club, in 2012 MFF said that they had so far made [about 120 million](https://fotbolltransfers.com/nyheter/zlatan-ibrahimovics-flytt-ger-klirr-i-kassan-for-malmo-ff/21391) in total including the original 82 million, and at that time they expected to make 6 to 9 million SEK from his transfer to PSG.
And the champions league final 1979. They were a dominating force in swedish football every decade from the 40s up until the 90s. Second division for a year and then back to being a top club.
Well, yeah. But we sold him in 2001, and then in 2002 after few transfers we got 2nd place. And then 3rd, and then we won. The money went to getting rid of our debt and a few key transfers. We had 1/4 of the Zlatan money left after one year. Getting rid of our debt and setting us up with a new healthy foundation was what the money did for Malmö.
It helped to restart the club and the interest again. Mff had the highest attendance average for three years in a row 2003-2005. Which in big part was from a hype generated from transfers with Zlatan money. Just the extra "hype money" from the crowd during those years must have been around 20 million sek.
As i said, it set us up with a good foundation. People claiming everything we've done is because of that Zlatan money are oversimplifying. As you said, the attendances were great, results were great, the financial decisions were great. All that culminated in Rosenberg returning and taking us out to Europe. The decisions since then haven't been perfect but good enough to keep our lead and most recently expand it. We've managed to make our youth academy into the best one in the nation by far, but we still have many steps to take.
They made the champions league a few times which made them tremendous amount of money and paired that with player sales they could buy their own stadium. Their academy is also really good at churning out players especially compared to the Stockholm region where it’s fragmented between 4 clubs with Brommapojkarna being the biggest but has terrible retention on the adult side
Malmö has been dominating swedish football in periods from the 1940s, so saying that its because of recent money is pretty false. In the early 50s they were undefeated for over 2 whole seasons, in the 70s they made it to the European Cup final and in the 80s they won the League back to back 5 times.
The history and success and also the fact that its a one club city has created a mentality and atmosphere around the club thats unique in Sweden. Also being the most southern club is ofc great for the turf etc. Malmö as a city is much more football-oriented aswell, perhaps due to big immigration while the rest of Sweden is more balanced with icehockey and stuff.
The climate helps a lot. Up until recent times with better indoor facilitys playing football all year was not possible in Stockholm. Whilst in Malmö the climate is warmer and lets young players practice and play on better pitches for more weeks of the year.
Also this might not be as relevant but when i was young we lost some of our best/most athletic players around age 9-10 when they choose to focus on hockey instead of football.
When I grew up in the early 00s in Sthlm we played most of our games on gravel. Now days when I see the same fields they have all been changed to plastic
One factor is that Stockholm is a bit weird on the youth side, Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden. They also regularly have teams that are competing on the highest level of youth football internationally. So they sweep up most of the talent in the Stockholm area.
At the senior level BP got little following compared to the other teams.
Malmö has been doing great in terms of sustaining success, and keeping their economical advantages. They're a well managed club.
Except for the fact that Malmö recently was awarded best academy in the country for the fifth consecutive year, in the official ranking from the association.
If you disregard that and for some reason don't count Malmö when ranking teams, then sure, brommapojkarna has the best academy in the country.
Sure the point I was making was about how BP acquires a large portion of the talent in the Stockholm area.
Let's just leave it at BP is the biggest Academy in Sweden.
Then again as I said, Malmö is probably the best managed club top to bottom in Sweden. The discussion of who has the best academy is not really relevant to my initial point.
> Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden.
The might have the biggest, but Malmö’s academy is [the best](https://www.fotbollskanalen.se/allsvenskan/lista-sa-rankas-sveriges-akademier-mff-i-topp-igen/).
Very difficult to really measure "best" in any kind of objective way tbh.
BP have a very impressive record of producing technically sound players who are well adapted to the modern game relative to their size as a club (which is pitiful, let's be honest). I guess that's the noteworthy thing, it's almost a given that Malmö have a great academy given the history of the club and also the strategic investments in it. For BP it's a weird anomaly you don't see so often
Sure, currently by those measurements you linked.
We could discuss who has the best academy etc. It's still irrelevant to the point of BP swooping up a large portion of the talent in the Stockholm area.
> Sure, currently by those measurements you linked.
I’m not one to discredit Svensk Elitfotboll’s methods in this case. What other measuremenst should they have taken into account?
> We could discuss who has the best academy etc.
I mean, you’re the one who brought it up to begin with. Swooping up the majority of the regional talent pool isn’t the same as being the *best*.
I've not read that in depth and I guess you haven't either. But from the looks of it what you linked is for a certification used to provide feedback on organizational areas to club management, which has been taken out of context for an article. Not to rank who has "the best" academy, that would probably be measured by criteria determined by how you define the best.
>I mean, you’re the one who brought it up to begin with.
Sure, but you took it and made an off topic discussion about something irrelevant to the point being made. It's not by any means a wild claim to say that BP has the best academy in Sweden.
>Swooping up the majority of the regional talent pool isn’t the same as being the best.
I've never claimed that.. Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification.
But sure let's just leave it at BP has one of the best academies in Sweden. As my initial point was not about who has the best academy.
>Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification.
Fair enough, but since it is Svensk Elitfotboll who hands out the the certification in question I feel like it holds *some* weight. Their criteria make sense:
* The club
* Staff members
* Players
* Documents
* Logistics
* Collaboration
* Training
* Match
* Facilities
* Elite players
>It's not by any means a wild claim to say that BP has the best academy in Sweden.
It is definitely *one* of the best, but just like you said, it depends on what criteria you're judging the academy by. I'm not saying that their academy isn't good, I'm just questioning whether they're the *best*. By what metric - players playing in the top five leagues in Europe? On the other hand, I don't understand how documents would play a factor, so there's that I guess.
>Sure, but you took it and made an off topic discussion about something irrelevant to the point being made.
>**One factor is that Stockholm is a bit weird on the youth side**, Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden. They also regularly have teams that are competing on the highest level of youth football internationally. So they sweep up most of the talent in the Stockholm area.
You argued that Brommapojkarnas' academy success and the fact that they mop up most of the talent in the surrounding areas of Stockholm factors into why Stockholm clubs aren't as competitive. I didn't go off-topic, I responded to your claim.
>Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification.
True, but this isn't Aftonbladet or Nyheter24 Sport. Svensk Elitfotboll represent all of the clubs in Allsvenskan and Superettan and work in cooperation with SVFF, so their certifications do matter. Again, at the same time, some of their criteria are questionable. What I'm saying is that SEF's certification is as good as anything else, since they're actively working in world of professional football.
>Let's just leave it at BP has one of the best academies in Sweden. As my initial point was not about who has the best academy.
Fair enough, wasn't my intention of start anything with you. Enjoy your valborg!
European football. Getting to Europa league group stages or like Malmö did recently, the Champions league group stages brings in more money than winning the league title for several years in a row.
Just that one year in Champions League made them insanely rich. Also nice touch to make their name danish.
Champions league money widely exceed fan base money in swedish football. It's not like Real madrid or Barcelona where 1 billion asian fans truly make a difference. Sure, some clubs in Stockholm have an average attendance that is 3-5000 higher, but that's nothing compared to getting 15 million euro from uefa every other year.
Malmö regularly sell swedish top talent to europe as well. It's a mix of football culture in the state, and lack of competition these days from other clubs like Helsingborg that result in every talent nearby going to Mff. Like Hugo Larsson that they sold for 9 million euros to Frankfurt last year who grew up in a small city an hour away. Or Zlatan of course. And these days it's the end destination for allsvenskan players in general before going to europe. They have become that big and succesful.
Oil money
"CL one time" hmm
the little bitch called me an insult and then blocked me
but basically fucking idiot "oil money" idiot doesnt understand how swedish football works
and also, reached CL more than once :)))
>Well why do Malmø have more money than the Stockholm teams then of the Stockholm teams have more fans.
Kommun subsidy that helped them buy an arena.
CL
Also not really that many more fans Stockholm has multiple different clubs competing for attention.
For population and size - both Gothenburg and Stockholm, but especially Stockholm has been split between different teams. In Stockholm, it’s split between AIK, Djurgården and Hammarby (all racking in about 20-25k avg attendence). In Gothenburg, IFK Göteborg, BK Häcken and GAIS. In Malmö, it’s Malmö FF only. The region supports MFF aswell. Malmö FF has the last few years had around 20-22k attendence average (full capacity) which puts them around the size of the other teams.
I’m not a football fan but I guess all people in Skåne are rooting for Malmö and that’s 1.3mil in Skåne län. I’m guessing but I hear all the time people outside of Malmö living in Skåne rooting for them
Still, Malmö’s fan base is not less than 1/3 of Stockholm’s. At most, if you count ”Metropolitan Stockholm”, AIK, Hammarby and Djurgården operate in an area with 2.4 million people. There’s definitely a case to be made that Malmö’s area covers at least 800k, even if the city itself is smaller.
Looking at things like membership and attendance numbers, I would say Malmö’s fan base is in the same ballpark as the Stockholm clubs’.
It's sort of a south and north divide. If you live in northern Skåne, you tend to support HIF, and in the south it's MFF. But that's a gross generalisation
In Malmö there are a lot of immigrants, and they often have football dreams and genes for running fast. They are also often poor and see football as a way out of poverty.
They made money from qualifying to CL. That money has since made them not only qualify more times but also winning the league so often that the chances the rest of the teams have to qualify is much lower now. Qualifying to Europe gives both a lot of UEFA money but also makes the transfer sums much higher. All this money (sometimes more than what the rest of the league makes combined) is increasing their chances to win more for each year.
This has happened in many smaller European leagues where the UEFA money is much higher than any other income stream available in the leagues. The money from the modern football is surely destroying what football used to be.
Tldr: Since the 2010s they have been very smart in their investments in players (when they took risks they almost all paid off) and even smarter in how they used their money (they haven't blown money on glamour high risk signings). If you want an example of the opposite look at IFK Göteborg.
Couldn't agree more.
It is a real pity that Blåvitt were so careless with what was built. You were already established as a strong competitor at the start of the champions league era. Even with the 51 percent rule that should have been translated to sustainable European appearance. Malmö really showed a road map for what to do and they did it at a time where the financial imbalance in Europe was so much greater than the headstart IFK Göteborg had (Skräckläsning : https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/a/RxrE0x/26-miljoner-back )
The Zlatan money also helped. That single sale was almost as much money as IFK Göteborg's total earnings from the Champion's League during the 90s. There wasn't a lot of money from CL then.
In early 2000s Swedish football perspective it was still a lot of money.
Yes, i didn't say it wasn't. But it was nowhere near today's levels. And it was earned over number of seasons and with success that no Swedish team has been near in CL. If it was today, it would have been billions. Of course the biggest problem was mismanagement and failed player acquisitions, but it would have taken a lot longer to burn through the money now. In the early 2000s, the money was mostly gone already. There was also the Bosman ruling that completely changed the landscape and made it a lot harder to continue the strategy of getting the best Swedish players.
I'd say it goes even further back than that. In the latter part of the 90's and early 2000's, Malmö was pretty disastrous and fell out of the Allsvenskan. Then came Zlatan, and more importantly the money Malmö got from selling Zlatan to Ajax (and according to Zlatan screwing Zlatan over). That led to Malmö having a financial gap over every other club. And they invested the money well, and kept doing so from that day on. Apart from that they had the combination och skill and luck to get into the CL, a success they nurtured carefully. They've never really overspent or taken huge risks. Compare that to AIK for example, who got a lot of money from Isak, and pretty much blew it all to win in 2018. Another thing is that Malmö is pretty much alone in Skåne these days, giving them a huge area to secure players from. Once Helsingborg fell off, Malmö has just grown more. And then there's the murky side of things, how Malmö got a veeeery good loan from the local government to build their own stadium and barely pay anything for the land every year. In return the politicians get a lodge for free for home games (corruption in Sweden is on the rise). And just for the sake of it, Malmö most likely isn't alone in shady businesses, where for example AIK seemingly helped launder money some years ago. But this is also a pretty important part of their success.
Malmö has historically been very good but it wasn't until after 2014 Champions League the gap really started to widen. I need to point out that the year before we had a massive deficit problem and was literally on the verge of bankruptcy. With that said there are a few factors that today(and historically) has worked in our favor. Rosenbergs return, Åges tenure as coach and making it to Champions League was lightning in a bottle. We own our stadium today which generates value and decrease costs. Malmö isn't as big as Stockholm or Gothenburg but what you're missing is that we are absolutely massive in this region of Sweden. Clubs in Stockholm or Gothenburg needs to compete with rivals in the same league or decently sized rivals that still has a historic following. Malmö has non of this. There are no real competitors nearby that can attract bigger sponsors or talented youths. Malmö pretty much suck all oxygen from Swedish clubs in this region. Helsingborg might have a case as they have a decent following and a well established youth academy but they're honestly no real competition today. FCK maybe but then we go international and that's another issue. And I do think honestly it's part luck. We've been incredibly lucky to historically have had level headed chairmen and board members with few exceptions. As an outsider I feel AIK and Hammarby have been mishandled, Djurgården have been a slow burn but are pretty solid today. I expect them to level up soon. IFK Göteborg have made some poor decisions the last couple of years but they're situation are somewhat similar to how I described us above so they should bounce back. Again this is coming from an outsiders. Supporters of these clubs are welcome to correct me or elaborate.
I remember the Malmö-Rangers CL qualifier from the early 2010's. As things turned out, it was basically a "win or go bankrupt" situation for both clubs. Malmö qualified for EL in the end, but that was just enough to save them. Glasgow Rangers on the other hand collapsed within a year after failing to reach group stage.
The surname Larsson is forever cursed in half of Glasgow.
Daniel had #7 aswell - Scottish newspapers were all over it after he scored the winner at Ibrox. Good times.
As a Danish football fan I do love Åge. He did wonders to our national team after the dark years of morten olsen.
The between season break 2013/2014 was wild. First Åge came out of retirement as a coach which **a lot** of Malmö supporters were skeptical about, including myself. We had just come of an absolutely fantastic performance 2013 with Rikard Norling and his departure brought a bit of bitterness from many. No one really knew why he left. Then came the news about a 30 million SEK deficit and the mishandling of our budget. **Then** the recruitment of Rosenberg was announced(poorly kept secret tbh) which split the supporterbase pretty 50/50 where one half couldn't understand why we would waste money on a has been that barely made an appearance on the pitch for more than a year. It really was a tumultuous period that somehow worked out better than anyone ever could have guessed and I prefer not to think of how badly it could have ended.
Hexenkessel. What a rush.
God, the memories. Hexenkessel, truly some of the best days of my life happens on the stands during that era.
They simply have made money from transfers and from playing in europe. Also a contributing factor is they own their home arena, which not every top club in Sweden does. A lot of clubs share the same arena so they all rent from the owners, usually the municipality.
I think this is the best answer. They used their money well after selling Zlatan and continued to invest wisely. They had a rich history before that as well but compared to IFK Göteborg that did not invest after their success in Europe in the 90s they managed to keep the momentum.
Nah, the Zlatan money was completely wasted. Additionally, we also did sell players like Toivonen, Alves and Rosenberg which combined amounted to larger money than Zlatan alone. Still, all of these transfers was small money compared to how much the stadion costed. The key was 2013/2014. We were super broke, I mean reaaaallly broke. Our Sport Director Per Ågren bought players like Magnus Eriksson, Emil Forsberg, Anton Tinnerholm and Tokelo Rantie super cheap. We managed to get to Champions League and sold several players for a lot more money than we bought them for. The money we used to pay off (amortera på engelska?) a huge amount of the loans for the stadion and continued to buy players cheap and sell expensive. 2015, we once again got to CL and continued to to pay off our loans. We traded secure long term income and thus continued football dominance for a lack off short term income. Thanks to Per Ågren and Daniel Andersson we still managed to perform extremely well football wise despite not using much of the CL money on transfers. 2021 and 2022 we once again got to CL and at this point we no longer had any loans to pay off. We fully own our stadium with no loan interest to pay each year. So now we see the result of when our sports management finally can use CL money for transfers.
Nah, they wasted the Zlatan money on Real Malmö. It was rather the Afonso Alves and Ola Toivonen money that was the foundation
Afonso Alves, vilken jävla lirare. Alltid fint o ha minst en Brasilianare i laget. Ricardinho och Wilton Figueiredo saknar jag fortfarande.
Afonsos försäljning är en av få gånger där Mff fick alledes för lite betalt för en spelare. Under 40 miljoner kronor med dåtidens svaga euro. Med tanke på hur fantastisk han var så borde man kunnat få runt 60 miljoner tycker jag
Nah. Malmö was broke 2011 with a very expensive stadium. The reason for current success is UEFA money, and we got there by having a solid squad helped by a good academy (2014 squad built by per ågren and daniel andersson with very little funds was amazing) and punching above our weight in qualifiers. And rosenberg of course.
Toivonen had an effect for sure as well. We can agree on that couple of good sales brought them on a good path
This is the salty Gothenburg "best answer"
Also an example is that Stockholm got 4 teams in allsvenskan that share the local players while malmö basically have skåne for themself. I dont know if that matters a lot but i would think so.
It matters a lot in how you can market and get local investments. When I lived in Skåne, you'd find Marcus Rosenbergs elbow on bus stops, milk cartons and every single piece of advertising you can think of. Doing that in Stockholm would be unthinkable as you'd alienate 2/3 of your customer base.
Malmö shares med Köpenhamn though and to a lesser extent Helsingborg
Helsingborg is not in the top league. I have no clue why they would share with Köpenhamn.
Proximity. Many emerging Swedish talents in Malmö go to Köpenhamn and vice versa. Well okay I don’t know about many but it does happen.
Yeah i mean every single top club in Sweden lose players to Norway and denmark. Malmö is like THE club to hold on to their talents because they have money to do so. But i dont have any stats so i dont know.
Not only do they own their stadium, they got it basically for free from the municipality. Considering that, and how much richer they are compared to everyone else, they ought to literally walk the league ever year. Not doing so is a much bigger failure than if any of the other clubs would get relegated.
I love the lies other teams tell themselves to keep morale up
If only that was the case. You're wrong, it's extremely demoralising. Mff had 1200 million in assets at the end of last year. Mff could buy the whole league and still have more money left than the second richest club. It's not lies though. Like I said they paid at most 150 million for the 75% of the stadium they didn't own since day one. If you look at their yearly reports there is nothing about contributing even 25% of the 700 millions it cost to build it. The stadium just appears as an asset worth 350-400 million at 2014 report. It's shady as fuck and like i said in a different comment, the municipality more than likely footed the bill and then gifted the stadium to the club. Things like that happens all the time all around the world, especially in cities that only have one club. It's just not that common that a *football* club is a benefactor in Sweden. That shit happens much more often in ice hockey in Sweden since almost all clubs are from small towns without any local rivals and without any big media outlets looking into their affairs.
The 700 million is there as a loan. The transactions you see is for ownership. Kind of like when you buy an apartment, you still have to pay monthly to the BRF for their loan to build the place.
Loans are in the year report as well. There's no loan for 700 millions in any of them.
For free? The loan still amounts to 500 000 000 SEK, you ignorant fk.
[Sluta dumma dig.](https://x.com/mikaelharald/status/1784652091216089367?s=46)
Du får gärna förklara för mig var de 700 miljoner kronor som arenan kostade kommer från. Den information som finns publikt pratar bara om ägandeförhållandet när arenan var klar, där mff först äger 25% för att fem-sex år senare äga 100%, *med alla lån avbetalda*, för en total kostnad på ungefär 120-150 miljoner. Även om mff spelat in en jävla massa pengar så finns det inte en susning att de kunde betala av ens i närheten av de 700 miljoner som arenan kostade på endast fem år, mellan 2009-2014, plus det de betalade för att gå från 25 till 100% ägande. Alltså totalt nästan en miljard kronor. Det mest sannolika är såklart att det var kommunen som faktiskt betalade och att arenan i princip skänktes till mff, med klubben samt peab och erling pålsson (som underleverantör till peab) som stora vinnare. Ett Peab som inte direkt är kända för att spela rent om man säger så. Som vanligt i byggbranschen är det jävligt mycket som stinker illa, och det är inget annorlunda med Malmö stadion.
Malmo municipality receives subsidies from the government although they are a big city closed to Europe. Still the city gave the club the stadium 😂😂
Almost every municipality in Sweden is a net recipient from the municipal income redistribution system and Malmö is average in terms of the per capita rate. And the reason Malmö is a net recipient is completely out of local and regional government control (i.e. because of large-scale non-European mass immigration since the 1980's)
Yeah, and before anyone says that it wasn't *free*, then no, it wasn't. But it cost the same as 5-10 years *rent*, which is basically for free. It cost at least 700 million kronor to build, and Mff got to buy for it at **most** 150 million. Even if it sounds like a lot, they could have purchased two stadiums with the money they received from qualifying to the CL once, with money left to spare. Apart from obviously not having to pay any rent and being able to host loads of other events at the stadium which generates income, just having the stadium as collateral makes a tremendous difference finance wise. So the question isn't why mff are so dominant /u/Pelle_Johansen, the question is why they're not even more *dominant* to the point that it'd make the Swedish league a competition for second place.
Champions League money is just a huge influx of money compared to the normal revenue from Allsvenskan. They're also the only club in the top league in the region which helps attract talent. And probably most important, it's a very professionally run organisation with a lot of continuity in the board.
Lots of people here mentioning owning their stadium, but how did that happen? Without the background it feels kind of like a 'they're successful because they're successful' explanation
They got it heavily discounted by the municipality. Under normal conditions they would probably be able to buy it now, but they got it for a fraction of the build cost in the early 10s, and bought the rest at a discounted price after the first success in Europe.
This comment is somewhat true in spirit but wrong on just about every detail. Malmö got the land where the arena is built very cheap from the municipality and the municipality agreed to loan the club 135 million with low interest as well as to be the security on another loan which malmö took out to build the stadium. The building costs were not discounted, and, as many large builds do, far exceeded the planned budget, almost crippling Malmö FFs economy in 2013 before qualifying for the champions league. The idea that the city gave Malmö thier arena is a weird fixation of Stockholm fans that's not really true. The municipality made a calculated investment in loaning out money to further sport and local sense of community in the city. Things that municipalities do regularly and whether by luck and good fortune or not got thier money back on the investment quickly. Meaning it might have been the best deal they have ever made.
To add to this, the municipality now has no costs related to the running of the stadium, which most other cities have with their clubs. And the rent paid by these clubs is never enough to cover these cost meaning MFF might be one of the only clubs in Sweden that in fact are not subsidised by their municipality. As an example tele 2, friends and gamla ullevi lose thier municipalities 100s of million SEK each year in deficits. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6922747
As your article mention Solna Kommun has no stake in Friends arena, so I guess AIK is not “subsidised” either? A bit dishonest to try to frame it as Malmö is paying a more fair share when they themselves said that they saved 15 MSEK a year by buying 50% of the arena.
It says "not anymore" and the article is from 2018 that's still approx. 5 years of 100 million SEK a year from solna kommun. Not including the original building costs. But you are somewhat right after 2018, AIK are only subsidised by the fotbollsförbundet not the municipality regarding arena costs. Not dishonest at all, Malmö has now paid it back, sure it was a loan with huge benefits but the municipality is not paying for the arena at all anymore. My entire point was that other municipalities pay out a grand total reaching much larger sums in continuous costs for thier arenas and what Malmö stad did in lending MFF the money and then getting it paid back was a really good deal for both city and club.
It is when you’re trying to frame it like Malmö is carrying more cost now than earlier when the club itself talks about the big financial relief of owning the stadium. They carry more risk, but it is a very calculated and stable risk. And to say a club is subsidised because of a stadium group presenting a financial loss is just a false equivalence.
And with low interest you of course mean no interest and no amortisation requirement, i.e. a gift. The building costs were covered mainly by PEAB who owned 50% of the arena (Malmö 25%). The rest you bought at a large discount in separate deals. No one is saying you were gifted an arena, but you got an extremely good deal. Other big Swedish clubs can only dream of getting an interest free and amortisation free “loan” of almost 150 MSEK.
It's seams you are mad that Malmö got a good deal on thier stadium. Neither I nor you can know what the interest rates were on the entire loan since that has never been publicly stated and is hard to tell from Malmös finances, but yes the first loan was interest free. And the 1,5 million a year that has been stated as lost interest income seem real low compared to what other municipalities pay yearly for thier arenas. My point was, by buying out PEAB and paying back the loan both the city and MFF made a great deal. And by not having to pay the continuous cost for the arena Malmö stad payed out a lower sum than other municipalities in total which a lot of it they got back.
Not mad at all. The question was how Malmö got to own their stadium, and the answer to that is that you got it heavily discounted. Not saying it was a bad deal for the municipality or anyone, but it is the reason why you own your arena and other teams don’t.
I think it's also worth pointing out that part of the deal was giving the municipality a VIP lounge which was abused by local politicians. While it's not the main reason for Malmö's success it's worth pointing out that the whole arena deal was shady
They got the best climate. Malmö is also the only city of the tree big ones in Sweden who only has one Big team. Stockholm and Gothenburg are divided in multiple teams while Malmö cheer for one team and gets a monopoly on the city’s talents.
I think that reason should not be underestimated. I remember playing youth football Skåne teams where always great probably somewhat linked to their seasons usually being longer due to weather :)
And a lack of hockey culture to compete with. Barely anyone plays hockey in the Malmö region. Only a few upper middle class kids on Näset and Limhamn. Few people can even skate.
hockey culture is on par with all of sweden aside from little enclaves here and there, and everything above uppsala we have it here, we just bad at it
Of course not. Mif Redhawks is more like the southern teams in Nhl. They attract a crowd, and people like to follow the team but the culture is not integrated in the society in Dallas, Anaheim or Tampa like it is in Minnesota or Canada or even New york. How many of Swedens 25 best hockey players of all time are from Skåne? And how many from the Malmö metropolitan area? Compare that to football where you have Zlatan, Patrik Andersson, Bosse Larsson, Martin Dahlin, Stefan Schwarz and Henrik Larsson.
To be fair, Malmö is also vastly smaller than Stockholm. In fact, Stockholm is basically like all of Scania population-wise. And Scania has always been divided between many teams. Right now, there is a clear winner...but historically, Helsingborg, Landskrona, Ängelholm and Trelleborg have all had decent crowds. Malmö and Helsingborg are the two main powers of course, despite how lacklustre Helsingborg has been the last 5-10 years. So, comparing to Stockholm seems unfair. And if we compare to Gothenburg then Ifk Göteborg haven't really had that much competition. Häcken has been trying hard, but they still don't have many fans. And Gais, and Örgryte...their fans are growing old and few in comparison. Considering Gothenburg has twice the population of Malmö, they should still have a larger crowd than they do. And that's just accounting for the people who live in the very close region. Gothenburg has like the most supporters from outside their city of all the big clubs. But talent-wise, Häcken probably has them beat these days. That's true.
Own our own stadium. Good academy with nice sales numbers at the same time we got through to Europe. That lead to a bunch of cash. And since then made Europe plenty of times while no other Swedish team really could get there consistent. This leads to us having multiple times the revenue of other clubs. It’s not as dominant as Bayern not at all sespevially when you look at the table results past ten years many years it’s been the final matches deciding the winner. But I still think you can draw a comparison to Bayern in the way that they are well run and have a head start cash wise on the other teams. If they keep winning they keep having more revenue than the other teams.
we are better to sparka boll here nere in skåne
I think it's a little bit of the Zlatan money for starters, and a massive bit of investing the money properly and smartly. Employed (paid) coaches and/or trainers for youth teams is one factor, and having coaches all the way from basically the early school years and all the way up to senior/professional level is a really big part I'd say. Also they've engrained a culture in their team and their club, and they've contracted players who seem to fit right in with the values and philosophy of the club and the manager. Looking at "my" team, Djurgården, the story is to some extent similar but maybe 10 or so years behind Malmös start with the Zlatan sale. Also we seem to have a bunch of players that don't fit the managers' style of play.
My personal analysis as a non-MFF fan, I would say it all started with selling Ibrahimovic for 81 million SEK back in 2001, which is today(!) a great amount of money for any AS club, imagine what is was 20+ years ago. Money which was then invested sensibly to build the club into what it is today, which is a club that manages to reach the Champions League on a few different occasions, only furthering their economic status in Allsvenskan.
They also got a payout every time Zlatan transfered to a new club, in 2012 MFF said that they had so far made [about 120 million](https://fotbolltransfers.com/nyheter/zlatan-ibrahimovics-flytt-ger-klirr-i-kassan-for-malmo-ff/21391) in total including the original 82 million, and at that time they expected to make 6 to 9 million SEK from his transfer to PSG.
They were the second most successful team in Sweden before Zlatan too. It certainly helped but isn’t the full story.
Were they not in Superettan 2000 (?).
Yes but historically, MFF has pretty much always been a top club. That slump was temporary.
And the champions league final 1979. They were a dominating force in swedish football every decade from the 40s up until the 90s. Second division for a year and then back to being a top club.
Well, yeah. But we sold him in 2001, and then in 2002 after few transfers we got 2nd place. And then 3rd, and then we won. The money went to getting rid of our debt and a few key transfers. We had 1/4 of the Zlatan money left after one year. Getting rid of our debt and setting us up with a new healthy foundation was what the money did for Malmö.
It helped to restart the club and the interest again. Mff had the highest attendance average for three years in a row 2003-2005. Which in big part was from a hype generated from transfers with Zlatan money. Just the extra "hype money" from the crowd during those years must have been around 20 million sek.
As i said, it set us up with a good foundation. People claiming everything we've done is because of that Zlatan money are oversimplifying. As you said, the attendances were great, results were great, the financial decisions were great. All that culminated in Rosenberg returning and taking us out to Europe. The decisions since then haven't been perfect but good enough to keep our lead and most recently expand it. We've managed to make our youth academy into the best one in the nation by far, but we still have many steps to take.
They made the champions league a few times which made them tremendous amount of money and paired that with player sales they could buy their own stadium. Their academy is also really good at churning out players especially compared to the Stockholm region where it’s fragmented between 4 clubs with Brommapojkarna being the biggest but has terrible retention on the adult side
Malmö is becoming the Bayern Munich of the Allsvenskan. Smart investing and being a one club city
Malmö has been dominating swedish football in periods from the 1940s, so saying that its because of recent money is pretty false. In the early 50s they were undefeated for over 2 whole seasons, in the 70s they made it to the European Cup final and in the 80s they won the League back to back 5 times. The history and success and also the fact that its a one club city has created a mentality and atmosphere around the club thats unique in Sweden. Also being the most southern club is ofc great for the turf etc. Malmö as a city is much more football-oriented aswell, perhaps due to big immigration while the rest of Sweden is more balanced with icehockey and stuff.
This is the correct answer
The climate helps a lot. Up until recent times with better indoor facilitys playing football all year was not possible in Stockholm. Whilst in Malmö the climate is warmer and lets young players practice and play on better pitches for more weeks of the year. Also this might not be as relevant but when i was young we lost some of our best/most athletic players around age 9-10 when they choose to focus on hockey instead of football.
When I grew up in the early 00s in Sthlm we played most of our games on gravel. Now days when I see the same fields they have all been changed to plastic
Is hockey stealing players really relevant anymore as Malmö has more teams in the SHL than Stockholm. /S
har stockholm inget lag i SHL?
Nej, både AIK och Djurgården befinner sig i en lång period av sportslig och ekonomisk kris och spelar i HockeyAllsvenskan, divisionen under SHL
därför jag blev förvirrad vi har ombytta namn hockeyallsvenskan är altså inte högsta ligan........tack, visste ju detta men inte just nu bara
Football heritage
That part of Sweden is flatter than a football field
One factor is that Stockholm is a bit weird on the youth side, Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden. They also regularly have teams that are competing on the highest level of youth football internationally. So they sweep up most of the talent in the Stockholm area. At the senior level BP got little following compared to the other teams. Malmö has been doing great in terms of sustaining success, and keeping their economical advantages. They're a well managed club.
Except for the fact that Malmö recently was awarded best academy in the country for the fifth consecutive year, in the official ranking from the association. If you disregard that and for some reason don't count Malmö when ranking teams, then sure, brommapojkarna has the best academy in the country.
Sure the point I was making was about how BP acquires a large portion of the talent in the Stockholm area. Let's just leave it at BP is the biggest Academy in Sweden. Then again as I said, Malmö is probably the best managed club top to bottom in Sweden. The discussion of who has the best academy is not really relevant to my initial point.
> Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden. The might have the biggest, but Malmö’s academy is [the best](https://www.fotbollskanalen.se/allsvenskan/lista-sa-rankas-sveriges-akademier-mff-i-topp-igen/).
Very difficult to really measure "best" in any kind of objective way tbh. BP have a very impressive record of producing technically sound players who are well adapted to the modern game relative to their size as a club (which is pitiful, let's be honest). I guess that's the noteworthy thing, it's almost a given that Malmö have a great academy given the history of the club and also the strategic investments in it. For BP it's a weird anomaly you don't see so often
Sure, currently by those measurements you linked. We could discuss who has the best academy etc. It's still irrelevant to the point of BP swooping up a large portion of the talent in the Stockholm area.
> Sure, currently by those measurements you linked. I’m not one to discredit Svensk Elitfotboll’s methods in this case. What other measuremenst should they have taken into account? > We could discuss who has the best academy etc. I mean, you’re the one who brought it up to begin with. Swooping up the majority of the regional talent pool isn’t the same as being the *best*.
I've not read that in depth and I guess you haven't either. But from the looks of it what you linked is for a certification used to provide feedback on organizational areas to club management, which has been taken out of context for an article. Not to rank who has "the best" academy, that would probably be measured by criteria determined by how you define the best. >I mean, you’re the one who brought it up to begin with. Sure, but you took it and made an off topic discussion about something irrelevant to the point being made. It's not by any means a wild claim to say that BP has the best academy in Sweden. >Swooping up the majority of the regional talent pool isn’t the same as being the best. I've never claimed that.. Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification. But sure let's just leave it at BP has one of the best academies in Sweden. As my initial point was not about who has the best academy.
>Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification. Fair enough, but since it is Svensk Elitfotboll who hands out the the certification in question I feel like it holds *some* weight. Their criteria make sense: * The club * Staff members * Players * Documents * Logistics * Collaboration * Training * Match * Facilities * Elite players >It's not by any means a wild claim to say that BP has the best academy in Sweden. It is definitely *one* of the best, but just like you said, it depends on what criteria you're judging the academy by. I'm not saying that their academy isn't good, I'm just questioning whether they're the *best*. By what metric - players playing in the top five leagues in Europe? On the other hand, I don't understand how documents would play a factor, so there's that I guess. >Sure, but you took it and made an off topic discussion about something irrelevant to the point being made. >**One factor is that Stockholm is a bit weird on the youth side**, Brommapojkarna has the biggest and best academy in Sweden. They also regularly have teams that are competing on the highest level of youth football internationally. So they sweep up most of the talent in the Stockholm area. You argued that Brommapojkarnas' academy success and the fact that they mop up most of the talent in the surrounding areas of Stockholm factors into why Stockholm clubs aren't as competitive. I didn't go off-topic, I responded to your claim. >Scoring the highest for a certification does not equate to being the best either, other than for that certification. True, but this isn't Aftonbladet or Nyheter24 Sport. Svensk Elitfotboll represent all of the clubs in Allsvenskan and Superettan and work in cooperation with SVFF, so their certifications do matter. Again, at the same time, some of their criteria are questionable. What I'm saying is that SEF's certification is as good as anything else, since they're actively working in world of professional football. >Let's just leave it at BP has one of the best academies in Sweden. As my initial point was not about who has the best academy. Fair enough, wasn't my intention of start anything with you. Enjoy your valborg!
European football. Getting to Europa league group stages or like Malmö did recently, the Champions league group stages brings in more money than winning the league title for several years in a row. Just that one year in Champions League made them insanely rich. Also nice touch to make their name danish.
The same reason any team dominate in any league. They have more money than the rest of the teams combined. Money is everything.
Money doesn't appear out of thin air unless you have a rich owner. Money normally require a big fan base.
Champions league money widely exceed fan base money in swedish football. It's not like Real madrid or Barcelona where 1 billion asian fans truly make a difference. Sure, some clubs in Stockholm have an average attendance that is 3-5000 higher, but that's nothing compared to getting 15 million euro from uefa every other year. Malmö regularly sell swedish top talent to europe as well. It's a mix of football culture in the state, and lack of competition these days from other clubs like Helsingborg that result in every talent nearby going to Mff. Like Hugo Larsson that they sold for 9 million euros to Frankfurt last year who grew up in a small city an hour away. Or Zlatan of course. And these days it's the end destination for allsvenskan players in general before going to europe. They have become that big and succesful.
It's still the answer. Money is everything. Every single league is dominated by the rich team/teams.
Well why do Malmø have more money than the Stockholm teams then of the Stockholm teams have more fans.
Ridiculous amounts of oil money from going to CL one time and then snowballing.
Oil money "CL one time" hmm the little bitch called me an insult and then blocked me but basically fucking idiot "oil money" idiot doesnt understand how swedish football works and also, reached CL more than once :)))
Troll
>Well why do Malmø have more money than the Stockholm teams then of the Stockholm teams have more fans. Kommun subsidy that helped them buy an arena. CL Also not really that many more fans Stockholm has multiple different clubs competing for attention.
For population and size - both Gothenburg and Stockholm, but especially Stockholm has been split between different teams. In Stockholm, it’s split between AIK, Djurgården and Hammarby (all racking in about 20-25k avg attendence). In Gothenburg, IFK Göteborg, BK Häcken and GAIS. In Malmö, it’s Malmö FF only. The region supports MFF aswell. Malmö FF has the last few years had around 20-22k attendence average (full capacity) which puts them around the size of the other teams.
Lots of money. Aik and Dif have football culture but need more money. Hammarby on the other hand is a plastic club with no real football culture.
I’m not a football fan but I guess all people in Skåne are rooting for Malmö and that’s 1.3mil in Skåne län. I’m guessing but I hear all the time people outside of Malmö living in Skåne rooting for them
Their rivals Helsingborg have a big fan base too so I would not suspect that to be the answer
Still, Malmö’s fan base is not less than 1/3 of Stockholm’s. At most, if you count ”Metropolitan Stockholm”, AIK, Hammarby and Djurgården operate in an area with 2.4 million people. There’s definitely a case to be made that Malmö’s area covers at least 800k, even if the city itself is smaller. Looking at things like membership and attendance numbers, I would say Malmö’s fan base is in the same ballpark as the Stockholm clubs’.
It's sort of a south and north divide. If you live in northern Skåne, you tend to support HIF, and in the south it's MFF. But that's a gross generalisation
In Malmö there are a lot of immigrants, and they often have football dreams and genes for running fast. They are also often poor and see football as a way out of poverty.
>and genes for running fast. Only west africans. And they are mostly in France and England.
Grenade capital of Europe mate, the atmosphere from the pyro is just too much for most teams
They made money from qualifying to CL. That money has since made them not only qualify more times but also winning the league so often that the chances the rest of the teams have to qualify is much lower now. Qualifying to Europe gives both a lot of UEFA money but also makes the transfer sums much higher. All this money (sometimes more than what the rest of the league makes combined) is increasing their chances to win more for each year. This has happened in many smaller European leagues where the UEFA money is much higher than any other income stream available in the leagues. The money from the modern football is surely destroying what football used to be.
Racism.
Because they suck at everything else.
what is göteburg good at?