Just over a year after the sudden passing of Padres owner Peter Seidler, the organization has its new control person. While Seidler’s business partner Eric Kutsenda took over as interim control person in the immediate aftermath of Seidler’s death, he’ll now be succeeded more permanently by John Seidler according to a report from Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Kutsenda will remain part of the organization and the rest of the team’s senior leadership will remain in their current roles. Seidler’s ascent to title of control person will need to receive the approval from the league before it becomes official.
Seidler, 65, is the brother of the Padres’ previous owner and is among the members of the Seidler family who collectively hold what Acee notes is believed to be a 45% stake in the team. Previous reports have indicated that Peter Seidler intended for his family to maintain ownership of the Padres for generations to come and that the club intended to proceed with that plan following his death. John Seidler taking the reins of the organization appears to be the latest move toward making that plan a reality, and Acee added that a source familiar with the family’s plans confirmed to him that the Seidler family intends to own the Padres for “a long time.”
“Since Peter’s passing, Eric Kutsenda has served as our interim control person,” the Padres said in a statement provided to Acee. “Peter’s youngest brother Matt, as trustee of Peter’s trust, is pleased to announce that John Seidler, Peter’s oldest sibling, an accomplished entrepreneur and business executive, will be the Padres’ next control person, pending approval by Major League Baseball.
Peter never viewed the Padres as ‘his’ team. Instead, he saw the team as an asset of the community of which he was a faithful steward. John shares Peter’s vision and will continue to strengthen and nurture this great franchise, its players, fans and employees, and the entire San Diego community.”
Importantly, Acee notes that the upcoming changing of the guard at the top of the Padres organization is not expected to impact the club’s plans on the field in terms of payroll. In its final years under Peter Seidler, the Padres organization had operated hefty payrolls in hopes of speeding up the club’s timeline for contention, but starting last offseason began to lower payroll to something closer to the middle of the pack. Acee adds that the Padres believe that their current model for payroll is “more sustainable” and that it figures to continue going forward with John Seidler now at the helm.
For the 2025 season, that likely means the club’s payroll will need to come down as compared to current projections. RosterResource projects a $210MM payroll for the club next season as things stand, which is $41MM higher than last year’s $169MM figure. While previous reporting has indicated that the club has room to increase the budget beyond its 2024 level, that increase is expected to be marginal and leave the club to ponder trading pricey arbitration-level players such as Dylan Cease and Luis Arráez.
As a team, how much money did they lose / make last year?
The *real* numbers aren’t public, but I’m going to have my interpretor bet the house that they didn’t lose money. 56 out of 80 games were sellouts, franchise record attendance and a moderately successful streaming model co-owned and co-operated with The League. They’re the biggest deal in town… they’re a huge deal and likely printing money.
Their padres tv streaming deal paid the padres somewhere around 4m plus their cable deals which are unknown. Padres local tv money is terrible.
Bubs – Lost $116M per Forbes.
Forbes said that the Braves had $473 million in revenue when the Braves publicly available information had them at $574 million.
Forbes said that the Padres had $345 million in revenue but the Padres became a revenue payor in 2023 which means the minimum their revenue could have been was $410 million.
We know from the books of the Braves and the Blue Jays which are publicly available due to those teams being owned by publicly traded corporations, just download their shareholder reports, that at least those 2 teams have a total of around $134-137 million in non-baseball operations expenses. That is everything else other than players, coaches, trainers, training facilities, scouting, and benefits. I don’t see other teams s being all that different from those two teams. Do you?
$410 million revenue
– $137 million non-baseball operations expenses
– $227 million CBT payroll which includes 40 man payroll and benefits
That leaves $46 million for coaches, trainers, training facilities, minor league salaries, scouting, and benefits.
The Padres may have lost a small amount of money, but to even try to say they lost $116 million when we know what the other expenses were is not believable.
Forbes also said that the Blue Jays had $328 million in revenue when we know from their shareholder reports that it was $541 million, more than $200 million more than Forbes reported.
Pads – It would help if you actually read their stated methodology.
For instance, the stated revenue is Net of Revenue Sharing.
Sorry but as a highly respected longtime financial institution I am going to trust Forbes has the most accurate estimates possible.
And why the hell would you use CBT payroll? It’s only for luxury tax calculation purposes, it has nothing to do with the P&L.
Here’s the deets:
“Revenue and operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) are for the 2023 season and are net of revenue sharing, competitive balance taxes and stadium revenue used for debt service. Ownership stakes in regional sports networks, as well as related profits or losses, are excluded from our valuations and operating results, as are investments in real estate and other businesses. (For all-inclusive sports ownership valuations, see the 2023 Sports Empires rankings.) Sources include sports bankers, team and league executives, public documents like leases and filings related to public bonds, and media rights experts.”
I’ve read earnings reports and pseudo-dossiers on this and that pertaining to Padre biz, FPG… and what really seems salient or tangible is just how transformed the Gaslamp District really is… and nowhere have I found the *real* numbers because, well… the books are private… but looking at P&Ls doesn’t quite give the same pulse as just walking around downtown San Diego during GameDay. They own the buildings up and down the block, they own the parking lots that are bulging with overflow (at $50, $60 a car!) and they own the hearts and minds of every Brown and Gold-plad person walking around San Diego, let alone the ones dropping $200 a game on each member of the family. As I look around and truly gauge the splendor at which the Padres operate, they might be the worst company on Earth if they are truly… TRULY!… operating at a loss. It’s impossible to comprehend that, honestly. They own the city, and rightfully.
Perhaps the key factor in the amortization calculations is the pre-’24 stadium remodel at an approximate $80MM, but there is simply NO WAY the Pads are running in the red.
Gwynn – All that real estate is not part of the team’s Financials, and Forbes specifically states it’s not factored in the team’s bottom line:
“Ownership stakes in regional sports networks, as well as related profits or losses, are excluded from our valuations and operating results, as are investments in real estate and other businesses.”
As another example, Red Sox owners (FSG) also own Liverpool FC, Pittsburgh Penguins, The Boston Globe, and many other entities. None of it is part of baseball operations so why would it be included in the team’s financials?
I understand that, and that’s to my point- we don’t see *that* capital being reported. They simply aren’t losing money… especially when their public bottomline is obfuscated by smoky valuations.
Gwynn – Seidler Equity Partners owns all that. So yeah, I can see how they aren’t losing money. But that’s a separate discussion from Padres profitability or lack thereof.
All of everything you & a bunch of the Blindly Faithful have to say about the vibrant nightlife in the gaslamp & the Pobres being so financially stable would be reassuring, if they didn’t openly operate like the gaslamp’s ‘most vulnerable residents’
It would help if they actually got basic facts right. They can read the shareholder reports too. They are incredibly easy to get. Don’t even have to own the stock. Those shareholder reports are reality. Forbes’ guesses are not.
They could also get the actual numbers for their methodology from those reports. They chose to guess instead.
Instead of believing ANYONE, go download the shareholder reports.
Don’t TRUST anyone. Go look at the information yourself.
That is the point. Forbes is wrong. Period.
CBT payroll includes what a team pays in benefits, 40 man payroll, and things like pre-arb bonus pools. Other payroll figures do not.
Are you trying to say YOU are a “highly respected longtime financial institution”? Are you trying to say Forbes is? I have had multiple articles published in Forbes, you could too, so they are not a highly respected longtime financial institution. They are a publication that sells space in order to get more revenue and more clicks on their website. Look at most of the articles. They say “contributor”. Those are not journalists on the Forbes payroll, they are people like you and I that know a little bit about our industry and submitted an article and paid Forbes to have it published to boost the resume.
Unless it says Forbes Staff next to their name, its clickbait that someone paid to put there so their name is on an “article” on Forbes.
When it comes to MLB, since Maury Brown stopped writing the Business of Baseball, its not respected much at all.
Braaack. Wrong FPG. Seidler Equity Partners does NOT own all that development around Petco. JMI Realty owns much of it. The Padres bought some, including the land the city owned for Tailgate park, but John Moores developed much of the land directly around Petco and JMI is still listed on public documents as the owner.
It’s hard to believe that a team with barely a middle of the pack roster, that has more sellouts than any other team in baseball plus has great merch sales would be a net negative
dama – $288M in player payroll allocations (per Spotrac) and $345M in net revenue ($123M of which was gate receipts).. They paid $40M in luxury tax. 70% of Petco Park is owned by the city. They had to borrow $50M just to cover expenses.
Losing their tv deal and not making the postseason didn’t help.
There’s a reason why they drastically cut their payroll from 3rd in MLB all the way down to 15th.
Pads – Honestly I don’t want to go down this road. Asking if I’m a financial institution is quite bizarre. You detest Forbes, I get it. You have the right to ignore everything they publish. For whatever reason, when it comes to Padres financial discussion you are always way off base, like when you insisted they weren’t hurting financially and therefore weren’t going to take a loan and weren’t going to trade Soto to save a few bucks and weren’t going to drastically reduce payroll this year. Everything you insisted turned out to be 100% wrong.
But other than money talk you’ve been cool, so I’m gonna bow out of this discussion. Hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
I appreciate the kind words about Biz of Baseball. Damnit, if I could have made it work economically, I would have.
But there’s some irony in your comment: I have been at Forbes since 2006. As a Senior Contributor I have the flexibility to write just exactly as I did at BoB. My journalistic principles have not changed, and if anything I’d like to think I’ve gotten better in the nearly two decades at Forbes.
Maury, Loved your pieces on Biz of Baseball and I am aware that you wrote the Business of Baseball at Forbes for quite some time. .
While your name used to be on the Business of Baseball writeup in Forbes. Its not anymore. Mike Ozanian and Justin Teitelbaum were the authors in 2024.
As a shareholder of a not insubstantial amount of BATRA shares of Atlanta Braves Holdings I have watched with interest and amusement the difference between the publicly available information (bravesholdings.com/investors/financial-information…) and what the media is reporting about the team’s finances. Suffice to say the team is making much more money from the Braves than Forbes or other media is reporting.
There are two things being commingled here which explains the discrepancy between Forbes and Sportico with the valuation and the earnings report.
Braves Holdings, through Liberty Media gets into the real estate holdings with The Battery. Braves Holdings is more than the Braves. The Battery does not count on the Braves’ books and is designed as such. So, it’s possible for Braves Holdings to say they can move revenues from The Battery as a funding mechanism but it’s not a given. This is the same with clubs that own RSNs or the Yankees with Legends. Or a more dramatic factor was MLB creating BAMTech and selling it to Disney. That was pure profit off the MLB ledgers with the owners investing in a decoupled business.
This is going to be a continued trend that nearly all ownership will chase. It’s a better argument to say that should ownership desire to tap other resources outside of straight club revenues, they could do so. But again, it’s an option. It’s an easy way for owners to claim losses on one hand while feeding other revenue into the other hand.
Maury – Thank you, that is EXACTLY what I told him 4 days ago when I quoted from Forbes’ stated methodology:
“Ownership stakes in regional sports networks, as well as related profits or losses, are excluded from our valuations and operating results, as are investments in real estate and other businesses.”
It’s unfortunate he chose to ignore what I and Forbes both repeatedly stated.
Not only that, Forbes was well aware the Atlanta Braves Holdings 2023 FYE financials were released on Feb 28, 2024 so OBVIOUSLY Forbes didn’t even have to estimate anything – all the data they needed FOR THEIR METHODOLOGY was already provided in the earnings released in February (about a month before the MLB teams financial data was published by Forbes).
Did he really think Forbes was too ignorant to be aware of the FYE earnings release? SMH …..
This is very, very basic accounting here …. if owned real estate generates revenue, it will be treated as a separate entity with a separate EIN and separate financials.
Happy Holidays to you!!!
Visit the links I provided. Braves holdings separates out the Battery and all other revenue. It was still $108 million more than Forbes reported NOT including the battery.
Let me say that again, VISIT THE LINKS.
They were just wrong then is what you are saying.
I do think they lost some money but no mlb team would ever lose 100 mil in a single year. If they would have happened they would have salary dump traded the whole team.
Dom – The Mets lost $292M in 2023!!!
That’s what happens when you have just $393M in revenue and the player payroll alone totals $374M plus $101M charged for Luxury Tax.
See, that is the thing. They DIDN’T have a $393 million revenue. You keep quoting Forbes which is wrong. Manfred said that the Mets were top 5 in revenue in 2023. That means they were higher than the $579 million the Braves shareholder report showed they had. .
In 2024? None. In 2023 when their 40-man payroll was nearly $260 million and with benefits and other payments including revenue sharing payments probably topped $290 million, I am thinking they lost somewhere close to $40 million including the approximately $1.7 million they lost in TV revenue.
The thing to keep in mind is that since the O’Malley/Seidler family purchased the Padres from John Moores in August of 2012, they have never had a problem spending money even beyond what was viewed as the Padres max by the press.
In 2012 the Padres had been 28th in revenue. In 2013 the O’Malley/Seidler group along with Ron Fowler increased spending by 23% and the following year by another 32%. By 2015, just 3 years after they bought the team the payroll was double what it was when they bought it. Several local writers including Acee said at the time that the 2015 payroll was $30 million more than they could afford to spend. It kept going up from there and was 250% higher in 2023.
One thing they understood is that raising payroll by signing top name players would sell tickets and excite sponsors. By 2023 the Padres had raised revenue so much that even after losing their TV deal, the team became revenue sharing payers for the 1st time in history. The O’Malley/Seidler group had taken the Padres from the bottom 3 to the top 14 in revenue in a decade.
The team they purchased could never have had a payroll as high as the Padres had that year. Of course, that 2012 Padres team had never seen attendance as high or sponsorship money flowing in at the level the 2022 and 2023 Padres did.
2024 was another record attendance and record revenue season for the Padres. Multiple execs including Interim Control Person Eric Kutsenda, CEO Eric Greupner, and Chairman john Seidler all said that something between the 2023 and the 2024 payroll was sustainable. They wouldn’t say that if they were losing money at that level.
Where do they end up payroll-wise? My best guess from is somewhere around $255-260 million for CBT purposes and around $220-224 million for 40-man payroll.
I know that is more than what you asked about, but it is a complicated subject. Hope that answer gives you more insight into the Padres.
Good stuff Web-
I have no idea if they made or lost money in 2023. What I do know is they cut payroll down by around 90m from 23’ to 24’. They also needed to do that to duck back under the tax line. Paying 40m in taxes even if they could afford seems like a poor way to spend.
Fast forward to where we are now. The padres have said having a payroll around where they were in 24’ is sustainable. They have said they are in a very good spot financially. I’ll take them at their word.
As far as going forward non of us really know. The numbers Web tossed out there seem reasonable given it’s only 10-15m more than they’re at right now.
Acee and Lin had made it sound like the payroll this year will be somewhere between the 169m in 24’ and the 210m’ they are at currently. Of course those articles as well as Preller himself have said there is some flexibility if the right deal comes along. This all means they may see a small decrease from where they are at or a small increase from where they are at. Only time will tell but most likely the right deals will decide where they start the season payroll wise.
If the Padres lost money, large money. They would be sellling players to reduce payroll.
They would be dumping them. They haven’t traded any high salary players.
In 2024 the Padres only got 20 million for their tv contract. Five million from local channel and 15 million from mlb doing their games. Most teams in 2025 getting 20 to 30 million less on tv contracts. This needs be address now and not wait untill December 2026 when cba expires.
Congrats John. Let’s go win one for Pete!
Find it interesting that Peter younger brother Matt is in charge of the trust and not his wife or his older brother John.
Peter had a lot of different assets, his brother may have been in a better position to manage the trust.
Sheel Seidler, Peter’s widow, asked Eric Kutsenda, Peter’s business partner, to run the team temporarily and she asked Matt to be the trustee. The trust is still in her name.
“Instead, he saw the team as an asset of the community of which he was a faithful steward.”
Not to be crass but….that Bogaerts contract.
Yeah they didn’t see the TV money blowing up. But, this level of complete offseason inaction to improve the team, apparently due to finances, is no bueno. This franchise couldn’t afford that mistake. Someone else put it well: they have pieces for a $300 million team on a $200 million team.
It’s gonna really suck if or when they can’t re-sign Jackson Merrill. The way prices for star players are rising, it looks like he is only going go be in San Diego long-term if he wants to be. If he wants to get paid to the max, he is outta here in five years.
You can say that about any future free agent star.
Tell gutless “Uninformed” who muted me that Kutsenda and Greupner said they didn’t lose much TV money, none after 2023, and that MLB, which committed to paying teams 80% of all money lost to the RSN’s bankruptcies, only paid the Padres $6.8 million. That means that other than the one payment in May of 2023 that DSG defaulted on, the Padres have not lost any TV revenue. Facts are tough for some people, but that one is really simple.
No one in their right mind thought that Bogaerts at $25.5 million AAV was a bad deal. After all, the Red Sox offered him 6 years and $208 million or $34.66 million AAV. It was only ever the length that was a problem. So far Bogaerts deal is not upside down yet. Even with an injury filled, 1.2 WAR season in 2024, because of that low AAV the Padres have still broken even. He only needs to produce a 2.8 WAR for it to be a good deal for the Padres and a healthy Bogaerts not being moved from position to position is almost a guarantee to do that. After all, he hadn’t had a season with WAR below 4.4 since 2017.
But then “Uninformed” was whining about Bogaerts after a 4.4 WAR season that gave the Padres $15.5 million in surplus value, so it should be expected that he would be whining now.
Harsh Pads. Maybe that is why he muted you.
The Bogey deal was just all kinds of stupid and if you’re doing a WAR analysis in year one and 2 it’s not going to look very good in years 6-11.
@Pads
I muted you because you made up a cite about the Pads offering Soto a contract and put it as fact. (Don’t bring up Boras’ latest changed story about it. I am comfortable calling him a liar.)
Tl;dr. Don’t encourage me to mute you again.
Everyone knows that Bogaerts contract is terrible. That is not a controversial statement. If anything, I am being charitable by giving the team credit that they thought their TV money was secure when they handed out big contracts, ergo they thought their ability to continue doing so was secure. Obviously, it is not, and now they have trouble roster building due to limited resources.
You should have a very Merry Christmas.
@Ragnarok
Correct. Problem is, the WAR analysis for Bogaerts already looks bad in years 1-5.
The Pads paid for superstar production, and got one good year, and one bad one. These were supposed to be the great years.
Maybe Bogaerts beats the curve and somehow comes roaring back. I’ll be very happy to be wrong about him. Of course, the general consensus will also be wrong.
That is perfectly fine with me.
Ryan, if you are doing an analysis in year 1-2 you are going to look all kinds of stupid when its an 11 year deal. Come back in 6-7 years.
BORAS said the Padres made Soto a contract offer. He said it multiple times. It was reported on 97.3. So you are saying he lied? WTF is wrong with you?
Are you not “gutless” for muting all the people you have muted?
@Simm
But not about any franchise when trying to sign such a star.
Point being, the money spent on Bogaerts, a bad investment on a shortstop they didn’t need, would look mighty good being available for Merrill negotiations. Or even being able to sign a decent catcher, apparently.
Either way the player would want to accept an offer. If they don’t they will move on.
Keep an eye on whatever Tucker gets next year. That will be the floor for Merrill’s contract. Unless he really loves San Diego, or runs into injuries/ineffectiveness
So am I still waiting for Preller to start trading
I will forever be grateful for Peter Seidler and the Seidler family for the resources and effort they put into changing the Padres perception nationally and internationally.
Now, how much control and say do the Seidlers actually have with this franchise is an unknown.
45% is a great deal.
“Returning to middle of the pack” is also a concern.
“Sustainability” is a concern.
The Dodgers are on the verge of a dynasty and
present an almost unmovable threat.
When I hear “sustainability” teams like the Reds, Pirates, Rays and Rockies come to mind.
“Sustainability” does not win championships.
Immovable?
It’s Acee. Doom and gloom is his shtick.
Watching “The Comeback 2004 Boston Red Sox” story.
Not a whole lot different with the Pads and Dodgers, really with the exception…
The 2004 Sox ownership was ticked when the Yankees sent the Sox packing for the umpteenth time.
I don’t see that with the current Padres ownership group.
Where’s the fire?
Where’s the “those guys took it from us. We want it, and we will do what it takes to get it”.
The Dodgers beat the Padres. Instead of “we are going to do what it takes to beat those guys” Padres ownership has waived the white flag.
Padres ownership has shown ZERO concern about a blossoming rivalry and let down the city of SD and a burgeoning die hard fan base.
Time to ‘Cowboy Up’ Padres ownership and show some heart.
They have been hogtied with some very maniacal spending by somebody who was not being responsible (whatever his motivation was).
Shut up dude. Are you a mouthpiece for current ownership to justify lack of spending?
Come on man, with your bogus narrative!
Preller is going to have to be savvy and crafty with his mid market payroll moving forward.
Hope Pads fans enjoyed the few years with stupid money because it ain’t coming back. There’s going to be some really thin years when the dead money on the Darvish/Machado/Bogey deals come to pass.
Rockies sustainably suck.
This is a great thing. John said at a fundraiser for Lucky Duck Foundation in Spetember that the #1 goal was to have a parade in San Diego for the Padres and that they were committed to continue Peter’s legacy with the Padres.
That doesn’t sound like they are cutting payroll to me.
Of course, Acee is almost always wrong except when he is reporting things after the fact.
Burnes & Alonso incoming….
They’re doomed with an elderly payroll commitment.
There should be a word limit on posts. My thumb hurts from scrolling down.
Glad to hear John is taking over as the new control person but it’s pretty obvious the free spending days under Peter’s control will never return. I appreciated the input from Forbes and other sources. At this stage, regardless of how much money they really have (or want to spend), if they can’t or won’t make significant spending increases from the current payroll, they need to have some deep discussions on the best way forward. If it were me and I was in this situation, I’d bite the bullet, rip the band aid off, whatever you want to call it. Talk to Manny about renegotiating his contract for long term deferrals or possibly trade him to the Yankees, Blue Jays or Mets if he’s open to it. Trade Cease, Arraez, Suarez and Cronenworth to get the best prospects possible. You’re probably stuck with the Darvish and Bogaerts contracts until they’re over. The Hosmer contract comes off the books in 2026. That would free up significant space to extend King now if he’s interested and Merrill in 2026 if he’s still producing in 2025 like he did in 2024. Tell Sasaki you’re rebuilding to get younger, more athletic and take advantage of the current MLB rules understanding future TV revenue won’t help as much as it used to. Use funds freed up to sign short term contracts on free agents (do NOT sign Profar to three year deal!). Otherwise keep the gang together and hope for the best but it will only get more uncomfortable as each year passes.
For those discussing the Forbes or Sportivo valuations, please remember a couple of things:
The valuations when published are looking at the year prior. So, when they drop at the beginning of the 2025 season the numbers are for 2024.
Clubs that have real estate holdings in ballpark villages, own RSNs, other sports properties, or businesses associated to baseball or other sports will not see those revenues counted as they are separate from the actual club, yet owned by the club. Hope this helps.
And yet the Braves do report those separately in their shareholders reports. I posted links to those reports for 2023.
The Padres’ leadership transition is like a family heirloom being passed down, except it’s a multimillion-dollar baseball team instead of a dusty old watch. While it’s admirable that John Seidler is stepping up to continue his late brother’s vision, it’s hard to ignore the looming reality that the club is going to reign in spending after years of pushing to contend with a bloated payroll. It’s almost as if the Padres went on a spending spree hoping for a quick title, only to realize they had to scale back once the bill came due. This isn’t just a new control person—it’s a signal that the “big spend” strategy might be over, and now we’re left to wonder if the Padres can still play with the big boys without the same financial flexibility.