Here are my Season 27 &28 Sponsor deals. Last 4 columns give total gain at the end of the season if I win X amount of matches (in that example 23)


You can click the image to see it bigger.

The last 4 columns are my final gains if I win 23 matches this season. For example in season 27,
I picked Ashab Travels
won 22 and drew 2 ( = 23 wins),
I finished the league in 6th place.
I gained a total of $109,464,252 from sponsors. (Which checked out in the Finances page)

Notice how everything decreased this season? Especially the Win Bonuses and the total gains dropped sharply.

I have 2 questions:
1. Are the sponsor deals that random?
2. Or is there a specific reason for that decrease?

Thanks.

I haven't been around long, but I think the same thing happened to me after my first season, and then again after my first season at level 1.1. I think perhaps we just get a boost to help us out when we start or advance to another level, and what you are seeing now is normal. I haven't yet been demoted (knock on wood), so I'm not sure you would get the same boost again if you advanced to another level a second time.

Sponsor deals are not random, there are two parts to its calculation:

1. Fixed Amount: This includes the upfront amount and the amount per round. The maximum fixed amount available is based on your average league rating. However the total fixed amount will vary slightly based on the sponsor, a sponsor offering the highest upfront amount will give the least total fixed amount and vice versa. All teams in a given league can achieve the same total fixed amount.

2. Amount based on achievements: Includes the league position bonus and win bonus.
League position bonus is calculated based on your team's average rating compared to the average rating of your league. This amount will be lower if you are more likely to finish higher in that league. So this will be higher for weaker teams and lower for stronger teams.
Win bonus is calculated based on how many league wins you are likely to get. Similar to the league position bonus, this amount is also much higher for weaker teams, but the total win bonus per season might be higher for a stronger teams since they have the potential to win more games.

In your case, you can see the the fixed amount has actually gone up which means your league's average rating has increased compared to last season. But league position bonus and win bonus a lower for you since you are much better this season than other teams in your league and can achieve a higher league position and more wins comparatively easier than last season.

Engin Demir wrote :I have 2 questions:
2. Or is there a specific reason for that decrease?

Thanks.

I see the decrease comes from win bonus mostly. May be you were not expected to win that many games last season, so the game gave you a much generous win bonus. You over achieved expectations and racked up a good amount by end of season. This season the game thinks you will get much more wins easily, so the win bonus is not that generous anymore. My win bonus is just $ 273,222 this season.

And thanks Tegimus for the detailed explanation.

to confirm the system is working right, i have moved up, from a 55 rated div 2, to a 70 rated div 1. Looks like win bonus and league position is working correctly (10 to 15mil most position, and 2 to 4x the win bonus).
the upfront cost has gone from the biggest being 26.8m upfront(with 446k per round) and smallest being 8m(win of 821k), with round being inversed, to max 35.3m (588k) and 10.5m(1.08m). These don't seem that big a swing considering the massive increase in wages (total per season looks about 15million more, divided by 60 is 250k more per round). Feels like the basic income is not increasing that much.

Thank you Tegimus for the detailed explanation.

To sum up: You get less as you get better.

@Floyd007, Everything you said is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Seems like you didn't understand the topic.

Floyd007 wrote :
These don't seem that big a swing considering the massive increase in wages (total per season looks about 15million more, divided by 60 is 250k more per round). Feels like the basic income is not increasing that much.

But isn't it a good thing that it gets harder as you climb up the levels? Shouldn't be so easy to stay at the top once you get there. You also get more prize money income and more match revenue when your team is better

Engin Demir wrote :
To sum up: You get less as you get better.

If you are looking at win bonus only, then it seems totally fair that you get less per win when you are better. Because your potential to win is more.

Think of it like this - you were expected to win 5 matches and was offered 1m per win. You would have got 5 million if you had only won 5 matches, but you managed to win 10 somehow so you got 10m.
Next season your team is expected to win 10 matches so you get offered 600k instead per win. If you win only 10 matches you get 6m. Now you can't compare 1m and 600k and say that I got less when i got better. You actually got more because other teams underperformed in the previous season and you overachieved

Fathima wrote :
If you are looking at win bonus only, then it seems totally fair that you get less per win when you are better. Because your potential to win is more.

I would completely disagree that it seems "fair". In the real world, teams aren't penalized by their sponsors if they are projected to win a lot. Quite the opposite. Sponsors want to be attached to winners, that's essentially what the whole thing is about. A better solution, in my mind, would to make the Win Bonus portion of the sponsorship deals much smaller as a total percentage.

I think my point is not still clear. It is by no means penalizing a team for winning. It is just division of a certain amount by expected wins. The confusion arises because the amount is paid per win instead of a fixed total amount per season for getting x wins.

Say a sponsor wants to pay 5m as total win bonuses and they expect the team to win 5 matches. So instead of saying "5m will be paid if you win atleast 5 matches", they say "we pay you 1m per win".

Then next season they see that the team has improved and are ready to pay 6m total (1m more). But the team is now capable of winning atleast 10 matches(expected wins). So they say "we pay you 600k per win" instead of "we pay you 6m for winning atleast 10 matches".

In the second case, the sponsor is actually paying more. But if team overachieves in the first case, they can earn more which is causing this confusion. It is not paying less for improving, it is paying more for overachieving the targets.

Fathima wrote :
I think my point is not still clear. It is by no means penalizing a team for winning. It is just division of a certain amount by expected wins. The confusion arises because the amount is paid per win instead of a fixed total amount per season for getting x wins.

Say a sponsor wants to pay 5m as total win bonuses and they expect the team to win 5 matches. So instead of saying "5m will be paid if you win atleast 5 matches", they say "we pay you 1m per win".

Then next season they see that the team has improved and are ready to pay 6m total (1m more). But the team is now capable of winning atleast 10 matches(expected wins). So they say "we pay you 600k per win" instead of "we pay you 6m for winning atleast 10 matches".

In the second case, the sponsor is actually paying more. But if team overachieves in the first case, they can earn more which is causing this confusion. It is not paying less for improving, it is paying more for overachieving the targets.

Ok...but then that isn't really a WIN BONUS, is it? It is by nature variable based on the wins. If you want a fixed amount, then the sponsorship deal should be one fixed amount, if you want a portion to be based on wins as a BONUS, then it should be that. But in no way, if you want to replicate reality, should you penalize a team's win bonus because you expect them to win more.

No company ever said the following "Well...we would sponsor you, but you win too much, so we will go with the team that wins less"

I tend to see it more as a Normal case and a Yikes you're going to struggle so we'll throw you a bone case

It is incredibly unlikely in the real world that sponsors have any bonuses below tournament winning/positioning level, but this is a game and teams that are outgunned in their leagues need additional support.

texg8r wrote :
Ok...but then that isn't really a WIN BONUS, is it? It is by nature variable based on the wins. If you want a fixed amount, then the sponsorship deal should be one fixed amount, if you want a portion to be based on wins as a BONUS, then it should be that. But in no way, if you want to replicate reality, should you penalize a team's win bonus because you expect them to win more.

No company ever said the following "Well...we would sponsor you, but you win too much, so we will go with the team that wins less"

Good point. May be it should not be named "win bonus".
I was just trying to explain how I understand it works, never said it was the right way to do it.

But as Michael said, it is not about matching the real world, it is about rewarding weaker teams who try hard and achieve what was thought not possible, like what Engin managed to do.

texg8r wrote :
Ok...but then that isn't really a WIN BONUS, is it? It is by nature variable based on the wins. If you want a fixed amount, then the sponsorship deal should be one fixed amount, if you want a portion to be based on wins as a BONUS, then it should be that. But in no way, if you want to replicate reality, should you penalize a team's win bonus because you expect them to win more.

No company ever said the following "Well...we would sponsor you, but you win too much, so we will go with the team that wins less"

true, but sponsor money should still be collectively higher based on your expected performance for the season (the fixed value | per-round + signing injection + table position).

bonuses will remain as is : "Bonus". since it's basically a reward in itself. (the tougher your competition is, the higher this will go).

also, there's not much difference between all the available sponsors anyway, only the way they are distributed.

This season it got even worse. I'll be getting less even if I become the league champion 😂

The sponsors are severely punishing me for getting better. Shame on them 😜

But your team history says you made 50m profit last season despite having a "worse deal". I dont think match revenue makes that big a difference, and you didn't sell any players either.

Fathima wrote :
But your team history says you made 50m profit last season despite having a "worse deal". I dont think match revenue makes that big a difference, and you didn't sell any players either.

Are you saying, earning 18 million less from sponsors despite winning more matches isn't a worse deal?

I was at the Challengers Trophy. More matches, more ticket income.
I also did much better in cups. Made it to the quarter-finals. That's both more match wins and ticket revenue.
I also fine-tuned my wages, keeping them to a minimum.

The subject is "getting less from sponsors despite getting better". Please stop drilling based on your assumptions. You have always been wrong.